Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. The Welfare State, 1942-2013, obituary (Guardian)

After decades of public illness, Beveridge's most famous offspring has died, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

2. Forward, say Cameron and Clegg. But to where? (Independent)

Their confidence belies the fact they are the most trapped governing leaders since those that tried to rule in the late 1970s, says Steve Richards.

3. The myth of the imperial presidency (Financial Times)

Obama’s critics forget that he is stymied by his foes in Congress, writes Gideon Rachman.

4. Labour must challenge the Ronseal coalition (Times) (£)

The austerity government’s pledge to do what it says on the tin beyond 2015 shifts the centre of political gravity, writes Rachel Sylvester.

5. We need a dose of Thatcher-style privatisation (Daily Telegraph)

Wasteful public services need to be sold off, but today’s Tories don’t have the will to do it, says Philip Johnston.

6. Britain’s two gambles in welfare reform (Financial Times)

Prospects for the planned reshaping of benefits do not look rosy, says Janan Ganesh.

7. UKIP are not as odd as the Odd Couple (Sun)

The wisest thing Cameron can do right now is to avoid driving even more of his own supporters into Farage’s camp, says Trevor Kavanagh.

8. This renewal of coalition vows does nothing for families (Daily Telegraph)

Other than attempting to refresh their own vows, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have done little for married couples, says a Telegraph editorial.

9. Only bold Tory ideas will win the election (Daily Mail)

At yesterday's Mid-Term review there was a gaping void where policies on migration, Europe and law and order should have been, says a Daily Mail leader.

10. Yes, lead poisoning could really be a cause of violent crime (Guardian)

It seems crazy, but the evidence about lead is stacking up, writes George Monbiot. Behind crimes that have destroyed so many lives, is there a much greater crime?

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.