If you’ve got money, you vote in,” a woman in Collyhurst (just north of Manchester) told a Guardian reporter. “If you haven’t got money, you vote out.”
Well, they have voted out.
The politicians in their gilded Westminster bubble failed to see it coming. But now, finally, they are face to face with the truth. The truth that for many, things are intolerable, so intolerable that change, even change they are told will be bad, is better than things staying as they are.
They will have to deal with that.
This is the first time for many years, that the forgotten underclass has had a chance to DO something. To make themselves heard. Normal elections are considered a waste of time as politicians can’t be trusted. All waffle and no action – apart from things that will help their (the politicians’) friends.
Where are the policies, the plans, the political will, to build houses, create jobs, and deal with the despair of all those who feel themselves disenfranchised?
The housing element
This blog is a housing blog, not a politics blog, but one of the big, big problems those disenfranchised voters have – is housing.
- Property prices are too high for them to buy their own home
- Private renting is also expensive and does not give long term security
- And social housing is being sold off.
Why we need social housing
Social housing was probably the best solution we ever had to the problem of housing people who cannot afford to buy:
- It is affordable (properly affordable, not politicians’ doublespeak affordable)
- It is maintained by the landlord – be this the local authority or housing association, and
- It is secure
Many of our problems today stem from the Thatcher government and the greed and ‘I’m all right Jacksim’ it propounded. However, I think one of the worst things she ever did was to sell off our social housing.
Because you cannot realistically expect the private sector or business to take its place.
- Builders cannot afford to build homes for ordinary families – and it is not in their interests to do so when they can make so much more money building ‘golden bricks’ for Asian businessmen.
- Ordinary private landlords cannot afford to take a chance on ‘risky’ but needy tenants such as the homeless and those on benefit. And it’s not fair to ask them.
We need the benevolence of social housing which operates on a not for profit basis and for the benefit of its tenants rather than its shareholders.
The problems for our cities
The housing problem is starting to get very serious. Our cities depend on the ‘ordinary’ low paid workers to function. We need nurses and teachers and policemen. We need office workers, cleaners and shop assistants. We need waiters, and bus drivers and men to empty the bins. But there is nowhere for them to live!
Very few can afford to buy ‘ordinary’ homes – not when three-bed semis with a bit of garden are selling for upwards of half a million (if you’re lucky).
The situation is most serious in places like London, Oxford and Cambridge where it is starting to affect the ability of employers to attract workers. If something is not done, cities will start to die.
But it’s obvious
The solution, to my mind anyway, is obvious. We need to build more social housing – this will provide much-needed accommodation as well as employment for our builders.
But there needs to be one other thing. Even if no new social housing is built.
The right to buy must STOP
- It is unfair on people why buy on the open market – why should someone (who is already fortunate enough to get social housing) be offered such a windfall?
- It is also frequently unfair on the buyers themselves – often they don’t fully appreciate what owning your own property (and being responsible for the maintenance – especially maintenance and service charges for leasehold properties which can be very expensive) actually entails. This is partly why some 40% of properties sold under right to buy end up in the hands of private sector landlords.
- And it is unfair on all of us. Our taxes were used to build these properties. I don’t know about you but I am very happy for them to be used to house someone who is in need – but I don’t see why they should be sold off at a loss.
There are many other things that need to be done to help the disenfranchised underclass who voted in their millions for Brexit.
But if they can see houses being built – and kept – for them, and their children – rather than for absentee investors from Asia – that will go some way towards restoring their lives.
Well said Tessa.
Yesterday Frazzy and I took a boat trip up the Thames from Greenwich to Vauxhall Bridge and back. We were pointing out landlmarks we had grown up with and noting how much has changed. Much of the river front that all our lives was decrepit looking warehouses, old bomb sites covered in weeds is now classy looking tower blocks dominating everywhere and from the river you can see inside where every one of those apartments was empty, ones where you couldn’t see inside there wasn’t a single individual taking in the (Rare) sun and impressive views on their balconies.
Building after building, empty investment opportunities, not a single home among them
Apart from the current lack of political will, the issue is funding.
Thanks to that wonderful democratic decision taken on Thursday, we are probably heading for the following combination: A recession with right-wing Tories in government. So I’d think that their answer to budget issues will be more cuts across the board.
It does seem indeed that there was a case of “if you haven’t got money, you vote out” and that will prove to be a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Inside Housing have just published an article on social housing providers with complex financial arrangements in place to support building and maintenance are likely to face a call in of cash with confidence ruined. This will cause them to have to sell off more assets to satisfy creditors
The point I am making in the article is that politicians and the government have lost the confidence and are unconnected with vast swathes of the population. If they want to re-connect with them and get back their trust, they are going to have to do something positive to help.
Taking action on social housing is one of the things I think they will have to do. If they fail to do so then they will have to live with the consequences of that.
And they dont look likely to do that anytime soon Tessa. You have Corbyn’s cabinet acting like traitors. Like him or loathe him Corbyn got in on the biggest mandate since World War 2. Labour members voted for him, he is what they wanted. It isnt for his colleagues to stab him in the back but accept that the public voted for him. They are public servants, not dictators and this is another example of the arrogance of politicians that is causing so much trouble.
Democracy means everyone has a voice, they cant champion democracy and then throw their toys out of the pram when the public vote a different way from what they think is best for them.
This is turning into a very strange and complex revolution and when I see Politicians being interviewed on TV they actually ALL look completely flumoxxed about what to do next
Ben has just referred me to this article: https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/
Here is a quotation:
Brexit — despite all of the harm it is likely to cause and despite all of the malicious politicians it will empower — could have been a positive development. But that would require that elites (and their media outlets) react to the shock of this repudiation by spending some time reflecting on their own flaws, analyzing what they have done to contribute to such mass outrage and deprivation, in order to engage in course correction.
Dealing with housing and prioritising social housing building is something that can be done. There is no reason why it should not be done – no reason other than the lack of political will to do it.
And therein lies the problem – and one of the reasons for Brexit.
Some parts of the UK people have “no hope” due to the price of housing, other parts of the UK housing is cheap, but people have “no hope” due to the lack of jobs. People that can’t afford a home seem to have voted “in” when people that don’t have a good job seem to have voted “out”, therefore I think the exit votes does not have much to do with housing.
Moving the BBC seems to have worked well. So what about the High Court being relocated to the North East…..
If we had single transferable voting, so that the voters in a safe labour seat got to choose between the different labour candidates, then maybe some of the elitee would are about people in the save labour seats…..
I am amused by some of the comments made since Brexit, on how people like Ian above who seem to know why people voted they way they did. Also hearing if your rich you voted in , if you are poor you voted out, and visa versa depending on who you were listening too. It was not as simple as that.
I was on holiday in Italy along with a hotel full of other British, who either were not voting or had done postal votes, so we were able to discus it before the real results came in.
We had a larger amount out than in. It did not follow on rich or poor, working or not working or retired. It was purely on migration, and not whether they should be able to come or not but the amount that were coming, and then bringing in their families which are using our resources.
There were other Europeans their who agreed we were taking in more than our fair share as they made it difficult for other migrants to stay in their country, and may wished their country had the guts to ask the people.