Show Hide image

The property-owning democracy is dead - so build one for renters instead

Politicians need to face reality. 

Labour’s leadership challenger, Owen Smith, is full of new ideas, but when asked about the housing crisis he reached for an old one. He wanted to see a “property-owning democracy”, he told journalists at his campaign launch in Orgreave

The idea of the property-owning democracy has deep roots. Indeed, it is tied up with British constitutional thought. The right to vote was traditionally linked to property ownership. The extension of the franchise in the 19th century was focused on groups who owned land or long term leases (ironically the reforms disenfranchised the few female property owners who had previously had a right to vote).

Even after the franchise was extended to non-homeowners, the concept kept its powers. The Tories first used the phrase “property-owning democracy” in the 1920s, as a bulwark against the spectre of socialist collectivism. 

It was resurrected after the war by another Conservative, Anthony Eden, but it was the zealous Margaret Thatcher who did the most to put it into practice. In 1971, half of families in England and Wales owned their own homes. Twenty years later and post-Right to Buy, seven in ten did.  

These days, it is barely disputed that British should buy their own home. But this is not the reality, as a new Resolution Foundation report shows. In London, just one in three residents are homeowners, down from a peak of 40 per cent. In Greater Manchester, homeownership has plunged 14 per cent since the early 2000s. Other areas with fast-declining homeownership levels include Yorkshire and the West Midlands. 

The usual reaction from politicians is to bemoan the figures and pledge to build more homes. The first is not helpful – the second will take years. And unless enough homes are built to dramatically flood the market, renters will not be able to afford them. According to The Equality Trust, 86 per cent of renters have less than the £8,838.65 needed to take out the maximum mortgage on an average first home. 

Those dealing not in political promises, but in cold hard cash, recognise renting is here to stay. The financial services firm Legal & General has launched an investment fund focused on building largescale rental accommodation. Aldermore, a mortgage lender, said the Resolution report “reflects the changing nature of the British housing market”.

Given that a growing pool of voters aren’t going to be part of the property-owning democracy any time soon, it is surprising that Labour politicians haven’t done more to woo them. Smith’s 20 policy pledges does not include any for renters. Jeremy Corbyn, as befitting a London MP, has the right instincts about improving conditions in the private rented sector. But given the landlord lobby any policymaker will be up against, his policy wording is vague. 

Ed Miliband, in his doomed 2015 campaign, was the closest to come to a credible policy for renters. He promised three-year tenancies with a six month probation period, and a cap on rent hikes during that time. Nearly two in five private renters voted for Labour, compared to one in five owner-occupiers.

Labour could be bolder still. Housing in the UK has become an investment asset, not a roof over your head. Millions of property owners have a vested interest in ensuring that house prices remain almost out of reach for first-time buyers. Hundreds of thousands of landlords are relying on Generation Rent for their pensions. Why should a party sceptical of unbridled capitalism be encouraging voters to aspire to such a broken model?

Radical change will not be easy. But Labour could start by trying to sidestep these vested interests. Embrace professionalised renting of the Legal & General model – then regulate it. Bring back the demands to scrap letting agent fees. Come up with a more convincing model of shared ownership. Spell out the link between low wages and the cost of mortgages. Change a culture where not owning your own home equals social embarrassment. Take up the cause of the families forced into temporary accommodation simply because they can no longer afford local private rents. Outside the mad world of the UK housing market, these are achievable policies. Germany has a culture of renting rather than owning, and its centre-right government introduced moderate rent controls

In changing the culture and economy, it could take the moral highground. Why should property tenure denote the quality of a nation's democracy? Are we still in thrall to an idea of citizenship in which non-property owners are invisible?

For years, politicians have tried to connect with the working family with a mortgage. But increasingly, the working family has rent to pay instead. The dream of a property-owning democracy is over. Let’s have a right-to-a-roof-over-your-head democracy instead. 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

Show Hide image

Leader: Boris Johnson, a liar and a charlatan

The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. 

Boris Johnson is a liar, a charlatan and a narcissist. In 1988, when he was a reporter at the Times, he fabricated a quotation from his godfather, an eminent historian, which duly appeared in a news story on the front page. He was sacked. (We might pause here to acknowledge the advantage to a young journalist of having a godfather whose opinions were deemed worthy of appearing in a national newspaper.) Three decades later, his character has not improved.

On 17 September, Mr Johnson wrote a lengthy, hyperbolic article for the Daily Telegraph laying out his “vision” for Brexit – in terms calculated to provoke and undermine the Prime Minister (who was scheduled to give a speech on Brexit in Florence, Italy, as we went to press). Extracts of his “article”, which reads more like a speech, appeared while a terror suspect was on the loose and the country’s threat level was at “critical”, leading the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, to remark: “On the day of a terror attack where Britons were maimed, just hours after the threat level is raised, our only thoughts should be on service.”

Three other facets of this story are noteworthy. First, the article was published alongside other pieces echoing and praising its conclusions, indicating that the Telegraph is now operating as a subsidiary of the Johnson for PM campaign. Second, Theresa May did not respond by immediately sacking her disloyal Foreign Secretary – a measure of how much the botched election campaign has weakened her authority. Finally, it is remarkable that Mr Johnson’s article repeated the most egregious – and most effective – lie of the EU referendum campaign. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week,” the Foreign Secretary claimed. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

This was the promise of Brexit laid out by the official Vote Leave team: we send £350m to Brussels, and after leaving the EU, that money can be spent on public services. Yet the £350m figure includes the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher – so just under a third of the sum never leaves the country. Also, any plausible deal will involve paying significant amounts to the EU budget in return for continued participation in science and security agreements. To continue to invoke this figure is shameless. That is not a partisan sentiment: the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, denounced Mr Johnson’s “clear misuse of official statistics”.

In the days that followed, the chief strategist of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings – who, as Simon Heffer writes in this week's New Statesman, is widely suspected of involvement in Mr Johnson’s article – added his voice. Brexit was a “shambles” so far, he claimed, because of the ineptitude of the civil service and the government’s decision to invoke Article 50 before outlining its own detailed demands.

There is a fine Yiddish word to describe this – chutzpah. Mr Johnson, like all the other senior members of Vote Leave in parliament, voted to trigger Article 50 in March. If he and his allies had concerns about this process, the time to speak up was then.

It has been clear for some time that Mr Johnson has no ideological attachment to Brexit. (During the referendum campaign, he wrote articles arguing both the Leave and Remain case, before deciding which one to publish – in the Telegraph, naturally.) However, every day brings fresh evidence that he and his allies are not interested in the tough, detailed negotiations required for such an epic undertaking. They will brush aside any concerns about our readiness for such a huge challenge by insisting that Brexit would be a success if only they were in charge of it.

This is unlikely. Constant reports emerge of how lightly Mr Johnson treats his current role. At a summit aiming to tackle the grotesque humanitarian crisis in Yemen, he is said to have astounded diplomats by joking: “With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?” The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. By extension, he demeans our politics. 

This article first appeared in the 21 September 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The revenge of the left