Why can't we just build some more houses? Image: Getty.
Show Hide image

The Tories want to give away houses to make sure we have enough houses

Black is white. War is peace. Madness is sanity.

Hey, guys, I've got this great new idea for sorting out Britain's defence problems. The British military is under-equipped, right? The biggest problem facing our boys is that they, basically, just don't have enough stuff.

So, here’s my plan for making sure the military does have enough equipment: we sell off all the equipment that it already has. But – and this is the clever part – we do it at a massive discount.

No, trust me, this is definitely going to work.

Because, with the money we get from those sales, we can then buy some new equipment, right? I mean, probably not as much as we had to start with, because we offered that discount to motivate sales. That is certainly a downside, I’ll admit.

But you can only play the cards you’re dealt, and as we all know, there's no money left. So, thanks to the mess that Labour left us in, the only way to guarantee we have a properly equipped military is to sell off all the equipment that the British military already has.

And that is my long-term economic plan for Britain's hardworking soldiers.

Okay, so, nobody seriously thinks that this is a sensible military procurement strategy. And yet, in a different sphere of public life, “giving stuff away to make sure you have enough stuff” is an entirely respectable position, despite the fact it implies a level of economic illiteracy that should get you banned from so much as entering a branch of Tesco.

Yesterday, the Sunday Times confirmed that the Tories were, as a key plank of their manifesto, consider a massive ramping up of the right-to-buy. That, you’ll recall, was an iconic Thatcher era policy under which council tenants were given an automatic right to purchase their homes at a massive discount, and which has had absolutely no downsides in the 30 years since.

The point of the policy was to turn Britain into a "property-owning democracy", and it was, at heart, a political move. It worked on the assumption that people who own homes are more likely to vote Conservative than people who live in council houses. So, if you’re a Tory, you want more of the former, and fewer of the latter.

That, someone clearly thinks, still applies. Somebody in the Tory hierarchy has looked at which voters the party needs to win over to stay in government, looked at the fact there's a housing crisis, and put two and two together to make the square root of minus one.

Now, the party's manifesto will reportedly include an extension of the right-to-buy to cover tenants living in housing association (HA) properties. The proceeds of these sales, unlike the proceeds of past right-to-buy transactions, would be ploughed back into extra housing. In other words, it amounts to making sure we have enough tanks by selling off all our tanks.

There are so many problems with this policy that you’d think at least one of them would have come up in the discussions at CCHQ. One is that it HAs aren't actually an arm of government, so the government is promising to sell things it doesn’t actually own. It can probably find a way of making them do so anyway, but the bills that’ll result from the resulting legal wrangling seem an odd sort of thing to prioritise right now.

Another problem is that the policy will haemorrhage money, since that discount basically amounts to the state giving individual tenants a bung. "Sources" claim it'll eat into the housing benefit bill; that sounds optimistic to me, but even if it does, it will have done so by handing out houses to a lucky few, and as a British taxpayer who isn't being offered a subsidised house I feel a bit miffed about that.

And that is the biggest problem here: never mind the fact it’ll generate less cash that it costs us, or the fact that if the Tories really wanted to get the state building houses again they’ve had five years in which to do that. Consider the political ramifications.

Reuters report over the weekend said that the policy was “aiming to sway voters who are struggling to buy a house”. Now I know quite a lot of voters who'd describe themselves that way, and at least some of them would probably be open to a touch of electorally bribery. Extending right-to-buy to them would be a massive vote winner.

So why is nobody doing so? Because those people, some 9m of them, live in the private rented sector, over which the government has even less control than it does over housing associations. Those people would love the right to buy a house – but nobody is coming forward to give them one.

Because the problem with Britain’s housing market is not that HA tenants can’t buy their own homes. It’s that we need to build more bloody houses.

Still, I'm sure private renters will be delighted to see a future Tory government handing out subsidised houses like sweets to those who were lucky enough to be living in them at the time. It’s quite clear to me now that the only way to make sure we have enough houses is to give away houses. Black is white. War is peace. Madness is sanity.

That makes sense, right? Right?

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

Show Hide image

My time as an old woman with a £4,000 prosthetic face, working for the Daily Mail

On the Tube, a man offered me his seat. “I’m not an old woman,” I told him. “I’m a Daily Mail features writer wearing a prosthetic face.” He moved away.

I was, for a time, a Daily Mail features writer. My job was to sanctify and incite the prejudices of its editorial staff and readers – ideally while wearing fancy dress, because that is more palatable and moronic.

I have been, at various times and for money, a Saxon peasant, a Restoration hussy, the back half of a cow, a devout Muslim, an ice dancer and a man. It quite often went wrong.

I was, for instance, asked to dress up as an old woman, in order to find out what it was like to be an old woman. Any newspaper that was not institutionally insane would have simply asked an old woman what it was like to be an old woman but, since the Mail thinks in fantastical stereotypes, that would never happen. The results would be too shocking.

I was given a £4,000 prosthetic face. I went to the East End because that, according to the Daily Mail, is where poor people live. I was supposed to get mugged, so I walked around with £50 notes falling out of my pockets. A boy came up to me, handed me the £50 note I had dropped and said: “You want to watch your money. You’ll get mugged.”

Editorial was disappointed. Perhaps I should try again in Kensington? This was considered unsuitable (nice people live in Kensington), so I went to Tramp nightclub.

“My grandson comes here,” I said to the woman on the door, in my old woman’s voice. “What tabloid newspaper or TV reality show are you from?” she asked. (She was obviously a Daily Mail reader.) On the Tube, a man offered me his seat. “I’m not an old woman,” I told him. “I’m a Daily Mail features writer wearing a prosthetic face.” He moved away.

I was asked to wear a burqa for a week. A black burqa was no good for the photographs – the Mail hates black clothing, even to illustrate a story about black clothing – so I hired a golden one from Angels, the costumiers. I later saw a photograph of myself in that burqa, illustrating an actual news story in the Evening Standard.

In the US, a woman passed herself off as a man, convincingly, for a year. I was asked to do the same, although the budget would not run to a year. Even so, the idea that the Daily Mail would pay a female journalist to pretend to be a man permanently is not, if you know the paper, that weird.

I went to the BBC costume department and was given a fat suit and a wig. I was a very ugly man. As I left the BBC – my instructions were, among other things, to chat up women – a woman said to me, “You’re not a man, you’re a lesbian.” I hid in a pub and engaged in a telephone stand-off with editorial. I explained that I did not want to leave the pub because I didn’t look like a man at all but a very creepy woman, which is exactly what I was.

Suzanne Moore is away

This article first appeared in the 26 November 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Terror vs the State