[Ben Reeve Lewis expresses his views on politicians …...]
Yes folks its silly season again.
That time in the last ditch run up to an election when politicians start making rash and desperate promises which exposes to one all what they are really like. Wheedling, conniving, desperate conmen.
Jumping up and down like needy children shouting “Please, please sir….pick me…pick me”.
Why do we take them seriously?
It always mystifies me why we dignify them with reasoned consideration of their ideas or fluff them up with serious TV interviews that we then discuss in earnest.
John Cleese once said “What’s astonishing is why we don’t all throw rocks at them” and at this time of year I too am astonished as once again their true colours are laid bare for all to see, before the matter gets settled and their image returns to sober suits discussing sober matters of great importance.
On selling off the social housing stock
Spoof newspaper Newsthump got their measure this week with a hilarious story entitled “Rough sleepers given right to buy their cardboard boxes” in response to stories elsewhere that Cameron says if you pick him he will introduce the right to buy for housing association tenants as well
To which top lawyer Giles Peaker commented that there could be serious human rights challenges to the plan.
The Office of National Statistics also commented that the forced sale of housing association stock could add £60 billion to the national debt.
Regular readers will know I’m going to stay away from that last argument given my legendary grasp of the intricacies of finance and a ‘Janet & John’ level of competency with numbers but I do get the human rights angle, which is most ably summed by Giles when he says:
“I’m not sure that the Conservatives have considered the legal implications at all. It’s an astonishing proposal that will force a private owner to sell its property to another private owner. It’s a slow motion catastrophe.”
Legally the possible breach would be of Article 1 of the ECHR – “The right to peaceful enjoyment of the home” further complicated by the point raised by Housing association chief Keith Jenkins who suggests that forced sale of stock without 100% compensation would be ‘Disproportionate’ when viewed in the light of the ECHR.
Solicitor Charlotte Cook of Winckworth Sherwood added to the mix:
“Giving away charitable assets at a discount is not currently allowed. Charity trustees, or board members, have a duty not to dispose of assets for less than their fair value. Trustees can be personally liable if they allow this”.
So whatever way you look at, its just another ill thought out desperate bid to get another 5 years in office regardless of the consequences to the nation they are supposed to be protecting.
Perhaps its Newsthump’s article which best sums up the insanity of the situation:
“Boxes that previously would have been snatched off a market stall have been changing hands for up to five hundred pounds or six bottles of Premium Highland Malt. Homeless man Simon Williams said ‘I’ve been sharing my current box under Waterloo Bridge with my elderly parents and things can get a little cramped from time to time’”.
House of straw
If buying your own cardboard box doesn’t appeal then how about “Cob building”? No I’d never heard of it myself either but apparently its about building your own house out of mud and straw, a building method with much to commend it given the current state of the market [they did some on Grand Designs – Ed].
A three bed house would set you back about £25,000, so all joking aside its an attractive prospect.
Norfolk based Charlotte Eve runs classes in how to do it:
“You dig your foundations on site and you use the clay from that foundation trench to make your walls. It’s very environmentally friendly and it’s also cheap – cheap in terms of construction costs and also in terms of heating the finished home.”’
I’ve always fancied living by the sea so I think I might investigate the feasibility of building a sandcastle to live in. I can’t see a problem with that unless any readers can think of any pitfalls I may have missed.
Georgian stripes
Speaking of beaches the Telegraph caught my eye with this great story about a £15 million house painted like a beach hut which has apparently outraged the neighbours of Kensington after the owner went all stripey following a row with planners.
The Tele saying:
“Rather than fitting in with the other Georgian townhouses, the three storey property resembled a garish football strip with eight inch wide red and white stripes covering the entire front.”
The owner had wanted to dig out a massive basement but neighbours resisted.
You will recall that I wrote about the growth in ‘Dig Downs’ a couple of weeks ago along with the concomitant rise in objections to the disruption that even Robbie Williams has fallen foul of.
I loved the comments of 18 year old student and neighbour Saskia Moyle who said:
“It’s a real monstrosity- it sounds bad to say that it isn’t very Kensington but it just looks so weird.”
Probably clashes with her Gucci handbag.
Speaking of bizarre neighbours Property 118 ran a query from a member this week who lives in a medieval house next door to a 94 year old pyromaniac neighbour who lights 50 candles every night on the basis that candles are how medieval houses are supposed to be lit.
I’m sure Tony Robinson and Time Team would approve but not the other residents due to the three fires that have broken out in the last 11 months.
A curious problem indeed and I’ve mediated in my fair share of weird ones.
What made me smile this week
The Landlord Law Conference in Cambridge on Tuesday. A third successful sell-out event in a row.
Great to touch base with many old acquaintances and meet some new ones.
The attendees are all the sorts of landlords and agents you hope proliferate out there as opposed to the ones I have to deal with who see no profit in getting themselves educated about their business.
Even though they all know what I do for a living, (so in a sense I should be the anti-christ), they still chat and laugh with me, tolerating my often barbed and sarcastic Newsrounds, more than a couple commenting that they always look forward to their weekly, Friday dose.
And its at #200 now…wow
See ya next week.
200! Well done Ben.
Cheers Jamie. It is a bit of an anniversary
I find it unbelievable that anyone thinks selling of more social housing at large discounts is a good idea! If they were sold at market value and them money reinvested in building more, then maybe….
Much that I disagree with cheap rent for life in exchange for getting enough “homeless points” – so would like to see social tenants charged market rent. The continued need for the social housing sector should be clear to everyone, as a safety net is needed for people that the private sector can’t cope with.
Its a regional thing though Ian. Market rents for social housing in London wouldnt work because of the benefit cap. A three bed house in London on average is £1,500 – £1,800 per month. The benefit cap for a family is a maximum of £500 per week all in.
Social housing tenants on benefits couldnt afford it, rent arrears would soar and councils & housing associations go bankrupt.
Or in the alternative the benefit tenants would all get evicted and forced out to the home counties and beyond, putting pressure on local services and pushing up rents there as well.
its not the case that all social housing tenants are on benefit either and even with a fairly decent London wage they would still struggle.
Hi Ben,
Great post! What politicians are failing to see is who will replace those houses sold off by social housing to right to buy tenants?
Will those tenants then sell those properties to become ‘equity millionaires’ at least in London?
Well thats exactly it PS. My missus was one of those who benefited from the original RTB. Bought her council house with her mum and only 6 months left on the mortgage, which was the original intention of the scheme.
However it has come to light in recent months that a huge percentage of RTB homes are now being let out as rentals by former council tenants turned landlords, which wasnt the intention. Not the stated intention anyway.
There isnt a single element of housing, from landlording, rents, self build, mortgage clauses, homelessness, agent accreditation etc that doesnt have an impact somewhere else in the system as a whole but a holistic strategy is never anywhere in sight by any government, who just dont see the complexity.
Ben,
How much is the low rents in the social sector in London, enabling employers to pay low wages…..
One of the commentators on TV said that instead of helping people who are already well housed – ie Housing Association tenants – the money would be better spent on helping those in private rented housing who are in sub-standard property and having problems with their landlords.
Which sounds pretty sensible to me, but is perhaps not so much of a vote catcher.
Ian R I dont see the correlation between low rents and the inevitability of low wages. Are you suggesting that if everyone was on a London market rent employers would start paying better?
Soaring rental prices as an agent of positive change….now theres a stretch haha
Ian S….now you’re talking my language but the irony of it is that poor property conditions in the worst sectors can be seriously dented without too much cost.
Apart from fire brigades its councils in the main that are the enforcement people for this. Staff cuts aside (but not discounted) the main problem is that the 29 powers under the various bits of legislation dont join up, making enforcement unwieldy at best and occasionally downright impossible.
I’ll give you one example that would stop a lot overnight. The majority of tenants occupying the worst properties are on housing benefit but poor property conditions dont allow a council to stop paying housing benefit. If the law did then the cowboys couldnt operate.
Alternatively give us enforcement bods the New York model. Landlord runs a slum, tenant pays their rent into an Escrow account run by the county court until the court decides the property is fit for habitation, then the back rent is released.
The last time we went to London for a weekend, meals did not cost much more then in Stockport, yet the pub staff have to pay a lot more for rent…. Logic says that some point the pubs will no longer be able to get staff without putting the wages up a lot.
PS.
I LOVE the New York model, it will be an end to section 8 evictions cases having tenants claiming they did not pay the rent due to repairs. The housing benefit could be paid into the same escrow account. Just needs to make it work when a landlord buys a property in a poor state with a tenant living there and the work can’t be done until the tenant moves out.
Also make it illegal to re-let the property until the court (or housing officer) decides the property is fit for habitation. That way if the landlord evictions the tenants, he/she can’t get new ones until the property is sorted out.
Ian I wonder whether small London employers could actually survive paying London wages – enter zero hours contracts and cheap foreign labour, the mainstay of the hospitality business everywhere from London to Beijing via Rio.
Done it myself, working in pubs for £10 a night cash in hand, straight from the till.
I am vehemently against zero hours work and support the minimum wage but I think our economy survives on the black market. If it wasnt for immigrant work, legal and illegal we would all be forced to pay the true price for things. Then watch Cameron and his posh mates queueing up at the dole office.
We live in a nod and wink culture, including you and me. Could we survive if prices were based on the true price in an economy where employers paid fair wages? I doubt it.
I bought a T shirt in Primark today for £3.50. The poor sod making it probably got 20p.
Ben
You are absolutely right we do live in a nod and wink culture. How can we have people on zero hour contracts? It is ridiculous situation.
Zero hour contracts are not the problem, employers have always needed flexibility, but they used to pay an extra 50% (or more) to get it! Now they can get the flexibility while paying the minimal wage.
I have been thinking that the minimal wage should be 50% more for any hours are that not guaranteed – but then you may get everyone being forced to be self employed like in the building trade.
It does not help that the benefit system is so slow that anyone on benefits can not risk taking short term work.
Ian,
You talk a lot of sense.
I just hope one of our future PMs is paying attention national minimum wage and zero hours contracts.
The problem is that if you raise national minimum wage, you risk more immigrants coming into UK.
So stop immigration first then raise national minimum wage seems like a sensible idea?
“I bought a T shirt in Primark today for £3.50. The poor sod making it probably got 20p.”
If that. But try looking at it the other way round. He’d be 20p poorer if you didn’t buy it.
Developing countries don’t go from a self-sufficiency agricultural model to sophisticated market economies overnight. Our forebears suffered similar conditions.