Down in Brighton, the strangest party conference in years dragged on to a less than rousing close.
Jeremy Corbyn continued to be tortured by all those wild statements he made decades ago being thrown at him by every journalist with access to a decent search engine and enough stamina to plough through the turgid morass. In the end, Trident remained unscathed despite the leader’s best efforts, and he spent more time shifting his position on any number of issues than making new policy.
His shadow chancellor John McDonnell rattled off the usual stuff about how people’s QE and taxes on rich people would solve the nation’s problems. Such japes. Such fun, provided of course you didn’t take a word of it seriously.
But all that posturing might just distract us from what George Osborne ought to be saying to his party conference but almost certainly won’t. He should start by unravelling a big slice of his last Budget. It is an old adage among politicians that Budgets that go down like a lead balloon on the day often prove to be the most effective, while those that raise the loudest cheers often crash and burn. And so it is with his latest offering, at least as far as the property industry is concerned.
What possessed him to make it less attractive to elderly investors who he had personally released from the obligation to buy appallingly unattractive annuities with their pension funds to make it less attractive to buy property to let? Those investors fulfil a valuable role. They add to the available housing stock while earning their owners a modest inflation-linked income. The consequence of the new policy will be to see less property on the market for people who simply cannot afford to buy.
The chancellor is already climbing down over the sale of housing association homes. I have no issue with the principle, but it always made sense for this to be a voluntary arrangement whereby the association could reinvest in more stock. Why was this not obvious in the days before the Budget? Why pick the fight? And of course to offer the same associations a rent increase one year only to reverse it completely the next is not only open to judicial review but is also a shabby way to treat an important player in the housing market.
It is said the Tories’ most able strategist wants to take advantage of Corbyn’s dragging Labour to the left to capture the vacated middle ground. This is a shrewd move but he needs to understand how important housing is to millions of ordinary voters who either cannot themselves afford to own their own home or, if they are lucky enough to do so, know their children will never share their good fortune. What he should have announced is a flat rate for all developer contributions so that they are manageable in a sensible timescale. That, and a firm line with his colleagues in departments such as health, transport and defence over releasing surplus land, would be the way to make a real impact on housing completions and in the process show how he is, after all, in touch with what voters are desperately crying out for.
He might tell communities secretary Greg Clark to announce the future of the office-to-resi permitted development rights, which has enabled 7,600 new homes to be built - far more than was originally envisaged. He could add that creating a separate property asset class for the private rented sector should be a priority.
If Osborne wants to win the middle ground in Britain, nothing would win him more fans than taking action on housing. If he fails to act, he and his party might find the next election a bit harder to win than they might think.
Steve Norris is chairman of the National Planning and Infrastructure Association and of Soho Estates
No comments yet