We need to be braver and more radical in finding solutions. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Homelessness will not be solved by building private homes – we need a radical solution

After a decade advocating for homeless people at the helm of Crisis, Leslie Morphy has a message for government.

There’s lots of talk about young professionals struggling to buy their first home, especially in London, but for me there is a much harsher reality. There are thousands of homeless people whose lives are far beyond the bottom of the property ladder. They are stuck in hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation, hidden from view in over-crowded homes, garden sheds and worse of all, on our city streets, sleeping in woods and parkland. The solution for these people is not going to be through tinkering with the mortgage market or giving incentives for first time buyers.

As I step down from almost a decade immersed in advocating for single homeless people at the helm of Crisis, a message to government both locally and nationally is that we need to be braver and more radical in finding solutions to a housing crisis which underpins homelessness.

There is the very obvious issue that people simply cannot afford accommodation suitable for their circumstances. Affordable must mean affordable, including in London. For some this can be achieved through a reinforced commitment to social housing and not a sleep walk where social housing to rent becomes a distant memory in many parts of the country. For others the housing may not be social but it needs to have some of the characteristics of social housing and in particular some greater security of tenure than currently exists.

For the last year local authorities have been able to fulfil their duty to house people by housing them in the private rented sector. Those so housed should be able to expect at least some semblance of equality of tenure arrangements. As someone who spent their early years in a council house it is clear to me that there are good reasons why rents are low in social housing. They are low so that people’s income covers more than just the bare bones for survival.

Longer tenancies are something we have long called for. Recent research for Crisis highlights the damage done to tenants on short contracts who face being thrown out when they request repairs or their landlord wants to put the rent up. Abolition of arbitrary and often hidden letting agents’ fees will also do much to protect poorer tenants, for whom such fees can cause devastation and in some cases even homelessness.

Lower rents and greater security of tenure enable people to progress, contribute to their local communities and provide their children with opportunities. Affordable must mean more than subsistence living.

Housing Associations have been and still are important players here. Some are making very significant surpluses and they need to invest this into truly affordable homes rather than in more market rent products. The changes to the way they make their money need not prevent them from remaining our conscience.

But they can only work with what they are given. It is critical that local authorities fight for affordable housing on new developments. It is clear that councils take money from developers in lieu of affordable housing. This is a consequence both of their own budget constraints, that is the money props up their own budgets. But it is also a consequence of failing to provide for those in need, who may require more support and taking an often easier route which avoids discontent within communities.

Homelessness will not be solved by building private homes for sale or for rent. Good quality, supported accommodation needs to be delivered as part of new developments. It needs to be a fundamental part of the planning process and not an afterthought when all the main planning decisions have been made.  

When considering development councils must consider the role of temporary and supported housing. We need decent temporary accommodation for single homeless people.

This must be adequately funded, because at the moment single people who come to their council as homeless rarely get real support. They must be eligible for public funds, prove that they are ‘unintentionally homeless’ and even then will only get proper help if they are vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or physical disability or “other special reason”.

If they don’t jump through all these hoops, the inhumane but strictly ‘legal’ position is that a housing officer can simply send someone away with a letter advising them of where their local charity run hostels or day centres might be. That is when people end up on the streets. 

Crisis works with some great landlords who are keen to help people get back on their feet and enjoy full support from local projects who work hard to make tenancies work for both parties. But often our clients are left with little option but to accept rented places in awful condition, just to get a roof over their heads. There is probably enough legislation to drum out those landlords who are providing entirely inadequate housing already. But it needs to be enforced and local authorities need to do the enforcing. Where we do need legislation is so that people cannot simply be turned away with no advice or with an address of a local hostel or a local church where people can sleep at night.

We cannot simply put the onus on local authorities to act differently. It is the role of central government to ensure that they are properly resourced and that the legislative framework addresses the fundamental issues.

It is to their great shame that governments do not always act in the best interests of the country when it comes to housing. We have had 35 years of reducing commitment to housing those on lower incomes or with support needs and of inadequate supply of new homes. We need to reverse this and politicians from all parties need to agree to so over more than one parliament.   

Leslie Morphy is the outgoing Chief Executive of Crisis, the national charity for single homelessness people.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the row over Jackie Walker triggered a full-blown war in Momentum

Jon Lansman, the organisation's founder, is coming under attack. 

The battle for control within Momentum, which has been brewing for some time, has begun in earnest.

In a sign of the growing unrest within the organisation – established as the continuation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first successful leadership bid, and instrumental in delivering in his re-election -  a critical pamphlet by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), a Trotskyite grouping, has made its way into the pages of the Times, with the “unelected” chiefs of Momentum slated for turning the organisation into a “bland blur”.

The issue of contention: between those who see Momentum as an organisation to engage new members of the Labour party, who have been motivated by Jeremy Corbyn but are not yet Corbynites.

One trade unionist from that tendency described what they see the problem as like this: “you have people who have joined to vote for Jeremy, they’re going to meetings, but they’re voting for the Progress candidates in selections, they’re voting for Eddie Izzard [who stood as an independent but Corbynsceptic candidate] in the NEC”.  

On the other are those who see a fightback by Labour’s right and centre as inevitable, and who are trying to actively create a party within a party for what they see as an inevitable purge. One activist of that opinion wryly described Momentum as “Noah’s Ark”.

For both sides, Momentum, now financially stable thanks to its membership, which now stands at over 20,000, is a great prize. And in the firing line for those who want to turn Momentum into a parallel line is Jon Lansman, the organisation’s founder.

Lansman, who came into politics as an aide to Tony Benn, is a figure of suspicion on parts of the broad left due to his decades-long commitment to the Labour party. His major opposition within Momentum and on its ruling executive comes from the AWL.

The removal of Jackie Walker as a vice-chair of Momentum after she said that Holocaust Memorial Day belittled victims of other genocides has boosted the AWL, although the AWL's Jill Mountford, who sits on Momentum's ruling executive, voted to remove Walker as vice-chair. (Walker remains on the NEC, as she has been elected by members). But despite that, the AWL, who have been critical of the process whereby Walker lost her post, have felt the benefit across the country.

Why? Because that battle has triggered a series of serious splits, not only in Momentum’s executive but its grassroots. A raft of local groups have thrown out the local leadership, mostly veterans of Corbyn’s campaign for the leadership, for what the friend of one defeated representative described as “people who believe the Canary [a pro-Corbyn politics website that is regularly accused of indulging and promoting conspiracy theories]”.

In a further series of reverses for the Lansmanite caucus, the North West, a Momentum stronghold since the organisation was founded just under a year ago, is slipping away from old allies of Lansman and towards the “new” left. As one insider put it, the transition is from longstanding members towards people who had been kicked out in the late 1980s and early 1990s by Neil Kinnock. The constituency party of Wallasey in particular is giving senior figures in Momentum headaches just as it is their opponents on the right of the party, with one lamenting that they have “lost control” of the group.

It now means that planned changes to Momentum’s structure, which the leadership had hoped to be rubberstamped by members, now face a fraught path to passage.

Adding to the organisation’s difficulties is the expected capture of James Schneider by the leader’s office. Schneider, who appears widely on television and radio as the public face of Momentum and is well-liked by journalists, has an offer on the table to join Jeremy Corbyn’s team at Westminster as a junior to Seumas Milne.

The move, while a coup for Corbyn, is one that Momentum – and some of Corbyn’s allies in the trade union movement – are keen to resist. Taking a job in the leader’s office would reduce still further the numbers of TV-friendly loyalists who can go on the airwaves and defend the leadership. There is frustration among the leader’s office that as well as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, who are both considered to be both polished media performers and loyalists, TV bookers turn to Ken Livingstone, who is retired and unreliable, and Paul Mason, about whom opinions are divided within Momentum. Some regard Mason as a box office performer who needs a bigger role, others as a liability.

But all are agreed that Schneider’s expected departure will weaken the media presence of Corbyn loyalists and also damage Momentum. Schneider has spent much of his time not wrangling journalists but mediating in local branches and is regarded as instrumental in the places “where Momentum is working well” in the words of one trade unionist. (Cornwall is regarded as a particular example of what the organisation should be aiming towards)

It comes at a time when Momentum’s leadership is keen to focus both on its external campaigns but the struggle for control in the Labour party. Although Corbyn has never been stronger within the party, no Corbynite candidate has yet prevailed in a by-election, with the lack of available candidates at a council level regarded as part of the problem. Councilors face mandatory reselection as a matter of course, and the hope is that a bumper crop of pro-Corbyn local politicians will go on to form the bulk of the talent pool for vacant seats in future by-elections and in marginal seats at the general election.

But at present, a draining internal battle is sapping Momentum of much of its vitality. But Lansman retains two trump cards. The first is that as well as being the founder of the organisation, he is its de facto owner: the data from Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaigns, without which much of the organisation could not properly run, is owned by a limited company of which he is sole director. But “rolling it up and starting again” is very much the nuclear option, that would further delay the left’s hopes of consolidating its power base in the party.

The second trump card, however, is the tribalism of many of the key players at a local level, who will resist infiltration by groups to Labour’s left just as fiercely as many on the right. As one veteran of both Corbyn’s campaigns reflected: “If those who have spent 20 years attacking our party think they have waiting allies in the left of Labour, they are woefully mistaken”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.