Work & pensions secretary Ian Duncan Smith: the man with the plan. Image: Getty.
Show Hide image

So Iain Duncan Smith is setting housing policy now? God help us all

Five reasons why Iain Duncan Smith's plan to give free houses to those who come off benefits is a terrible policy. 

Oh, Iain Duncan Smith. Is there any other individual, anywhere in politics, who has such a talent for looking thoughtfully at a problem, giving it long consideration, and then coming up with a solution that is quite so catastrophically wrong?

Today the Times splashed on a story outlining the exciting new idea that IDS is pushing to include in this year's Tory manifesto. It would boost home ownership, incentivise people to move from welfare to work, and make working class voters less likely to defect to UKIP. The party’s leadership is said to be smiling on the plan. Here it is in a sentence:

Free council houses for recent benefit claimants.

Yep. From the Times:

Millions of houses would be “given away” to low-paid workers under Tory plans to reward people who come off benefits.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is pushing for a pledge to “gift” tenants their council home after a year in work to be included in the Tory manifesto.

If this doesn't immediately leap out at you as a good idea, that's because it's not. It's awful. How is it awful? Let me count the ways.

 

1) It misunderstands the reason people are out of work.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there are people who don’t claim unemployment benefit because they can’t find a job, but do so instead as an economically rational choice; people who have decided that their time is worth more to them then the wages available. These are the people who might be open to a great big house-shaped bribe to get back into work.

How many of these people do you imagine there are? And can it really be a large enough number to justify the fact that . . .

 

2) It eats yet further into Britain's scarce social housing stock

There are 1.7m people on the waiting list for social housing – people who would like one of these homes but can’t get one.

This policy does nothing for them. No, that’s not fair, it actually makes their situation worse, because it means there will be less social housing available to go round. Well done there.

What’s more . . .

 

3) It loses the taxpayer money

. . . for the very simple reason that, if you give away some sweets, then those are some sweets that you no longer have.

Iain Duncan Smith seems to think the reduction in housing benefit would help a bit to offset the cost of this scheme. And there is talk of a clawback: sell your free house within three years, you’ll pay 35 per cent of the proceeds in tax, that sort of thing. But the policy seems to assume the tax will fall as a proportion of sale price over time, and, anyway, that money won't be available for years. It’s almost certainly a net loss to the state.

Worst of all, a fairly hefty contributor to high house prices is high land prices, which pushes up the price of building replacement housing, too. So that 35 per cent clawback is extremely unlikely to be enough to fund replacement housing. And since the reason we have a housing crisis is that we don’t have enough houses, handing them out as electoral bribes is probably not a very good policy.

That's assuming that the bribery would work of course, which . . 

 

4) It's politically suicidal

. . . it won't. Approximately 17 per cent of households in England and Wales live in social housing; that’s around 4.1m of them. That, in the most optimistic assessment, is the maximum proportion of households who would stand to benefit from this policy.

Now consider how many people would instead be outraged by IDS’s plan. They include those in private rented accommodation, many of whom have been saving for years but can't get on the ladder; anyone sitting on a vast mortgage; and anyone who's drunk the Daily Mail kool-aid, and who now thinks that benefit claimants and social housing residents get a far too cushy time already.

I wouldn't want to hazard a guess of how many people there are on this second list. But since there are 4.2m households in the private rental sector alone, I think we can safely say it's more than on the first list.

Oh, and:

 

5) The government doesn't own many of these homes in the first place

Nearly half of them (1.9m) are instead owned by housing associations. These are charities, whose mission is to provide homes. Many of them have borrowed a fortune to build homes to help them fulfil this mission.

Even assuming that the government can force these charities to hand their assets out to their tenants, many will then be left with enormous holes in their balance sheets. So that will make building the homes Britain needs a whole lot harder, too.

***

Need I go on? This policy is economically, financially, politically and institutionally illiterate, and it'll make the housing crisis worse. So why the enthusiasm from the Tory front bench?

The answer, I suspect, can be found in the other policy currently under consideration: an extension of the right to buy to housing association stock. That also runs headlong into point five above, but it also shows quite how badly the Conservative leadership is still trying to relive the 1980s.

The party wants to increase home ownership, which is lovely of them. But they seem to think that the main the barrier to doing so is an over-mighty social housing sector. Break that, the argument goes, and you get more home owners and more Tories. After all, it worked for Margaret Thatcher.

But it won't work now – because the real reason home ownership rates are falling is rising house prices, and the main force behind that is we are not building enough houses in the places people want to live.

Yet the Tory party remains oblivious to this. Instead, it's shuffling assets around, ignoring the fact its policies will contribute directly to the decline of home ownership, and probably a concomitant decline in the number of potential Tory voters, too.

The Conservatives were once the natural party of government. Today they're a pale Margaret Thatcher tribute act, constitutionally incapable of examining why they can’t get a thumping great majority any more.

And Iain Duncan Smith is setting housing policy. God help us all.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.