As the
dust starts to settle on the various unread General Election party manifestos,
with their ‘bran-bucket’ made up numbers, life goes back to normal as political
rhetoric on social media is replaced with pictures of cats and people’s lunch. Joking aside though, all the political parties
promised so much on the housing front in their manifestos, should they be elected
at the General Election. In hindsight,
irrespective of which party, they seldom deliver on those promises.
Housing
has always been the Cinderella issue at General Elections. Policing, NHS, Education, Tax and Pensions
etc., are always headline grabbing stuff and always seem to go ‘the ball’.
However, housing, which affects all our lives, always seems to get left behind
and forgotten.
Nonetheless,
the way the politicians act on housing can have a fundamental effect on the wellbeing
of the UK plc and the nation as a whole.
One
policy that comes to mind is Margaret Thatcher’s Council House sell off in the
1980’s, when around 1.4m council houses went from public ownership to private
ownership. It was a great vote winner at
the time (it helped her win three General
Elections in a row) but it has meant the current generation of 20
somethings in Mid Sussex (and elsewhere in the Country) don’t have that option
of going into a council house. This has
been a huge contributing factor in the rise of the private renting and buy to
let in Mid Sussex over the last 15 years.
Nevertheless,
looking back to the start of the Millennium, Labour set the national target for
new house building at 200,000 new homes a year (and at one point that increased
to 240,000 under Gordon Brown
for a couple of years). In terms of what
was actually built, the figures did rise in the mid Noughties from 186,000 properties
built in 2004 to an impressive 224,000 in 2007 (the highest since the early
1980’s) as the economy grew.
Then the Credit Crunch hit. It is interesting, that the 2010
Cameron/Clegg government did things a little differently. The fallout of the Credit Crunch meant a lot
less homes were built, so instead of tackling that head on, the coalition side-stepped the target of the number
of new homes to build and offered a £400m fund to help kick start the housing
market (a figure that was a drop in the ocean when you consider an average UK
property was worth around £230,000 in 2010). The number of new houses being completed
dipped from 146,800 in 2011 to 135,500 the subsequent year.
So, one
might ask exactly how many new homes do we need to build per year? It is commonly accepted that not enough new
properties are being built to meet the rising need for homes to live in. A report by the Government in 2016, showed
that on average 210,000 net additional households will be formed each year) up
to 2039 (through increased birth rates,
immigration, people living longer, lifestyle (i.e. divorce) and people living
by themselves more than 30 years ago). In 2016, only 140,600 homes were built; simply
not enough!
Looking
at the numbers locally in Mid Sussex and the surrounding area, it is obvious to
me, that we as an area are not pulling our weight either when it comes to building
new homes. In the 12 months up to the end of Q1 2017, only 800 properties were
built in the Mid Sussex Council area, we may still need to do better. Go back to 2007, that figure was 410, 10 years
before that in 1997, 670 new homes and further back to 1988, 270 new homes were
built.
Who knows if Teresa May’s Government will last the
five years? She will think she has
bigger fish to fry with Brexit to get bogged down with housing issues. But let me leave you with one final thought.
The conceivable rewards in providing a place to
live for the public on a massive house building programme can be enormous, as
previous Tory PM’s have found out. Winston
Churchill in 1951 asked his Minister for Housing (Harold Macmillan) if he could
guarantee the construction of 300,000 new properties a year, he was
notoriously told: “It is a gamble—it will
make or mar your political career, but every humble home will bless your name
if you succeed.”
No comments:
Post a Comment