The housing element of Ed Miliband's Labour conference speech
was greeted by the wiser commentators with a mixture of disappointment,
puzzlement and hope. Colin Wiles pointed out that despite that heavily-trailed pledge
to be building 200,000 new homes a year by 2020 if Labour wins in 2015,
only a few words of the Labour leader's oration were devoted to
housing. He quoted all 212 of them in full, and so will I:
As I wrote just before Miliband got to his feet in Brighton, the capital could be needing about half of those 200,000 when and if the Labour leader becomes prime minister, suggesting that the target isn't nearly big enough for either London or the UK as a whole. Or Britain. Or England. Jules Birch joined Wiles in wondering precisely which bits of the British Isles Miliband was applying the 200,000 figure to. For Lynsey Hanley the speech was a mere step forward when what's required is a giant leap.
However, both Birch and Wiles found some encouragement in those few dozen words. And their poverty of detail belies the scope of debate in Labour circles about housing policy, not least as it would apply in London should Miliband enter Number 10 and a Labour mayor - Jowell? Khan? Lammy? Adonis? - take command of City Hall in 2016.
There is a strong desire to clamp down on the scandal of land banking for massive profit in London at a time when the housing shortage is critical and overcrowding rife. Shelter's Roger Harding says here that the GLA reckons about half the hoarded sites in the capital aren't even owned by property developers, but by hedge funds and banks with no intention of building so much as a garden shed on them.
We already knew shadow London minister Sadiq Khan is giving some thought to if it's time for a land value tax, which could put a big break on speculation, and I'm told he has found the Smith Institute's case for a property speculation tax "very interesting".
Miliband's "use it or lose it" line on this had right-wing pundits howling about totalitarian state "theft" but even prominent London Tories are calling for radical remedies. In June, Conservative London Assembly member Tony Arbour asked for "the problem of land banking" to be dealt with by boroughs demanding that planning consents set a date for the plan's completion. Boris Johnson himself re-affirmed during the same debate that he is prepared to make greater use of compulsory purchase orders to deal with the "pernicious" phenomenon.
Labour policy thinkers are also putting their minds to devising a concept of "affordable" housing that isn't outright laughable, as is the case with the government's malfunctioning "affordable rent" ploy. How should "affordable" be defined? Who should decide?
There is, it seems, broad agreement that a "fairly high" percentage of the new homes Labour would want built in London would be for social rent as conventionally understood.
On the private rented sector it isn't only Khan who likes Newham council's accreditation scheme for private landlords. Shelter's proposal for inflation-linked, five-year stable rental contracts appears much admired as a better way of limiting rent increases and improving tenant insecurity than old-style rent controls, though the party hasn't yet worked out whether or not it thinks these should be statutory.
Miliband has asked the former BBC Trust chair Sir Michael Lyons to look into ways to to prevent precious land being left unused while its owners idly watch its value mount. Sir Michael will also consider the development of those "new towns and garden cities", a good percentage of which would very likely be within easy commuting reach of the capital. How times have changed. The New Towns built in London's orbit after the last war - Stevenage, Crawley, Basildon and so on - spoke to a readiness among Londoners to leave a smogged, bomb-ravaged London behind. The new New Towns would be in part a response to more and more people wanting to be here.
I'm told that firmer Labour proposals for housing in London will emerge in the coming months. Dare we hope they will be bold?
Article Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2013/sep/29/how-would-labour-solve-london-housing-crisis
So we'll say to private developers, you can't just sit on land and refuse to build. We will give them a very clear message - either use the land or lose the land, that is what the next Labour government will do. We'll say to local authorities that they have a right to grow, and neighbouring authorities can't just stop them. We'll identify new towns and garden cities and we'll have a clear aim that by the end of the parliament Britain will be building 200,000 homes a year, more than at any time in a generation.What do these words really amount to and how much encouragement should London, with its distinctive and growing clamour of housing troubles, draw from them?
As I wrote just before Miliband got to his feet in Brighton, the capital could be needing about half of those 200,000 when and if the Labour leader becomes prime minister, suggesting that the target isn't nearly big enough for either London or the UK as a whole. Or Britain. Or England. Jules Birch joined Wiles in wondering precisely which bits of the British Isles Miliband was applying the 200,000 figure to. For Lynsey Hanley the speech was a mere step forward when what's required is a giant leap.
However, both Birch and Wiles found some encouragement in those few dozen words. And their poverty of detail belies the scope of debate in Labour circles about housing policy, not least as it would apply in London should Miliband enter Number 10 and a Labour mayor - Jowell? Khan? Lammy? Adonis? - take command of City Hall in 2016.
There is a strong desire to clamp down on the scandal of land banking for massive profit in London at a time when the housing shortage is critical and overcrowding rife. Shelter's Roger Harding says here that the GLA reckons about half the hoarded sites in the capital aren't even owned by property developers, but by hedge funds and banks with no intention of building so much as a garden shed on them.
We already knew shadow London minister Sadiq Khan is giving some thought to if it's time for a land value tax, which could put a big break on speculation, and I'm told he has found the Smith Institute's case for a property speculation tax "very interesting".
Miliband's "use it or lose it" line on this had right-wing pundits howling about totalitarian state "theft" but even prominent London Tories are calling for radical remedies. In June, Conservative London Assembly member Tony Arbour asked for "the problem of land banking" to be dealt with by boroughs demanding that planning consents set a date for the plan's completion. Boris Johnson himself re-affirmed during the same debate that he is prepared to make greater use of compulsory purchase orders to deal with the "pernicious" phenomenon.
Labour policy thinkers are also putting their minds to devising a concept of "affordable" housing that isn't outright laughable, as is the case with the government's malfunctioning "affordable rent" ploy. How should "affordable" be defined? Who should decide?
There is, it seems, broad agreement that a "fairly high" percentage of the new homes Labour would want built in London would be for social rent as conventionally understood.
On the private rented sector it isn't only Khan who likes Newham council's accreditation scheme for private landlords. Shelter's proposal for inflation-linked, five-year stable rental contracts appears much admired as a better way of limiting rent increases and improving tenant insecurity than old-style rent controls, though the party hasn't yet worked out whether or not it thinks these should be statutory.
Miliband has asked the former BBC Trust chair Sir Michael Lyons to look into ways to to prevent precious land being left unused while its owners idly watch its value mount. Sir Michael will also consider the development of those "new towns and garden cities", a good percentage of which would very likely be within easy commuting reach of the capital. How times have changed. The New Towns built in London's orbit after the last war - Stevenage, Crawley, Basildon and so on - spoke to a readiness among Londoners to leave a smogged, bomb-ravaged London behind. The new New Towns would be in part a response to more and more people wanting to be here.
I'm told that firmer Labour proposals for housing in London will emerge in the coming months. Dare we hope they will be bold?
Article Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2013/sep/29/how-would-labour-solve-london-housing-crisis
