The deception of the new right-to-buy

At this week’s Tory Party conference in Manchester, Cameron will announce a new right-to-buy scheme. Council tenants will be able to buy the house which they rent, and this is replaced by a newly-built  council house. At first sight, this looks good.

Details are sketchy. Baroness Warsi has spoken of building these houses on government-owned surplus brownfield land, such as the DEFRA site in Guildford. She speaks as if these houses will be owned by the Government, which seems unlikely. They are more likely to be council houses owned by local authority (LA). Another issue is the role of registered social landlords (RSLs). Many LAs have no council houses. They have been transferred to RSLs, who repair and maintain them, and collect the rent. Does the right to buy apply to RSL properties?

Let’s leave such details to one side. What will actually happen? A council house is sold at, say, 80% of its market price to its tenant. There might be some doubt as to whether a council tenant could get a mortgage deposit and repaymenst even at 80%, but perhaps they will. And a new council house has been built – by house builders, who have been paid. So what’s the net effect?

A new house has been built and paid for, as a result of the government subsidy. Who received that subsidy? The house builder. So this is the Holy Grail for Bellway and Taylor-Wimpey. A way of selling more houses, whilst maintaining house prices. The net effect is that the Government -actually the taxpayer – is paying Taylor-Wimpey so they can sell new houses and yet maintain current absurd house prices.

Its a neat trick. But its still a trick.

 

Brevity is not the soul of legislative wit

One of the aims of the draft National Planning Policy Framework is to simplify  the planning system and reduce the legislation from over one thousand pages to just 85. This sounds good, especially if you are a lawyer.

One of the central aims of legislation is to ensure that the law is unambiguous, and this often requires text to spell out the precise meaning. Otherwise the law is unclear, which leads to contests in court, and fat lawyers cheques.

So planning law will become vague as it becomes simpler. One example – the NPPF lists applications which would be ‘not inappropriate’ on Green Belt, and one of these is ‘engineering projects’. So what is an engineering project? I fear that they were thinking of one particular project, namely HS2 high speed rail  which will cross many acres of Green Belt, and will be challenged in the courts at every possibility, and the intention is to prevent that. But of course ‘engineering projects’ is simply undefined. For example, surely a nuclear power station is an engineering project? So NPPF would regard nuclear power stations as being appropriate for Green Belt?

Hands up if you’d vote for that.

 

 

Planning, Growth and Politics

The Government has issued its draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation. This is meeting significant opposition and raising controversy, not least because the Planning Inspectorate is advising Inspectors to consider using the NPPF on a case by case basis, even before consultation ends.  What’s it all about?
Centrally, it places a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ – in other words, planning applications will be approved unless there is a reason not to. There are many problems with this, notably the meanings of ‘sustainable’ and ‘development’. But it does not really matter. The NPPF is a political manoeuvre.

The Government is desperate to be seem to be doing something to promote growth. The superficial rationale is that current planning arrangements lead to many refusals, and that this is hindering economic growth. Is  this true? Is it reasonable?

The recent Housing Market Analysis conducted for the National Housing Federation confirms that more houses need to be built. Projecting population growth and decrease in household size, to 2020, shows that a 1% growth is needed, but current house starts are roughly half this. So why are they not being built – is it because of planning permission refusals? No. A report by the LSE shows that housing land needs can be met by infill and brownfield, without touching green field. They are not being built because developers know they will not sell, because they are too expensive. This was the other point in the NHF survey – a decrease in home ownership. Housing is just too expensive. But increasing supply will not force down prices. Neither the Government nor house owners want that.

Of course many applications are refused. Developers can make much more money from green field build than brown field – and so can agricultural land owners. But there is no point increasing developers’ profits at the cost of urban sprawl, when this will not affect the housing shortage.
The chart above (click it for a bigger version)  shows inflation-adjusted GDP growth rate for the UK and the World (data from the World Bank). It shows a close correlation between the two, suggesting that UK growth reflects global changes. It also shows UK growth averaging around 3% since the 1970′s, and falling over the edge since the 2008 disaster. But planning laws were the same throughout this period. In other words  planning did not hinder growth in the past, and there is no reason to think it is doing so now.

But the NPPF does allow Grant Shapps and Greg Clarke to stand up in the Commons and say they are doing something to promote growth, and deflecting blame for the lack of growth onto CPRE and the National Trust.

Thinking about housing

The Housing Market Analysis report from Oxford Economics, commissioned by the National Housing Federation, has been published today. It is being headlined that ‘the era of house ownership is over’. This is rather embarrassing for Grant Shapps, the housing minister, since it seems to deny Thatcher’s dream of a house-owning nation. His response has been to blame the previous government, and generally wave his arms about. In fact there is a great deal more to it than simply falling numbers of home owners. The problem is you have to work it out for yourself.

There are two questions. Do we need to build more houses? And who will own them?

Firstly, do we need more houses? The report estimates that due to a rising population and falling average household size, the number of households will rise from 26 million in 2006 to 30 million in 2020. If you work that out its roughly 1% a year. The number of dwellings in England (only) in 2009 was 22 million. One per cent of that is 220 thousand. But the report shows that the number of new starts is only around 100 thousand a year. Therefore the number of new house building is only about half of what  is needed – unless the demographics alter. And this also ignores old house being demolished.

The second question is who will own them. The report forecasts house prices to continue to increase. This seems reasonable. If fact Shapps does not want to see house prices fall – it would be political suicide if they did. With supply continuing to fail to meet demand, they would rise. And since they already represent a very large fraction of the UK’s personal wealth, few would want to see them fall. So the number of people being able to buy there own house, or to save for a deposit in a reasonable length of time, will inevitably fall.

But someone will own those houses. Who?

The report shows a significant rise in buy to let mortgages in the 2nd quarter of 2011. This is consistent with the rest of the pattern. An increase in the number of people renting their house means there must be an increase in landlords doing the letting.

So what is actually at the heart of this report is another instance of the widening inequality in society. A small number of people are rich enough to own and let houses in addition to the one they live in. And a large number of people cannot afford other than to pay rent, to those rich people.

Maybe Thatcher won after all.

HS2 Roadshow Cretins

A bizarre consequence of the Balsall Common HS2 Roadshow has emerged. Dr. Paul Thornton took some photos at the event (as I did) and a member of staff asked him not to do so – and he made an audio recording of the exchange. Towards the end the staff member called him a ‘cretin’. As a medic Dr. Thornton knew what cretinism is, but the staff member obviously meant the term as simple abuse. The recording is now on YouTube, here.

Media are suggesting the staff member has since been sacked. But Miranda Carter, HS2 Director of Consultation, is quoted as saying the person ‘will not be working on any more road shows.’

In fact HS2 are making a scapegoat out of their employee. The recording proves that several times the staff member went to check with senior staff. They did not emerge to be recorded, but she was obliged to convey their message that recording was not allowed. Surely they should take the blame, not the woman who has been berated?

But there is more to this. Do HS2 allow photos and recordings at Roadshow events? They haven’t said. Carter is quoted as saying ‘We’re here to provide clear and transparent information to members of the public.’  I suggest you test this. I suggest you attend a roadshow and voice an argument against HS2. I predict HS2 staff will offer counter-arguments. Obviously their information presentation is biassed in favour of the scheme. I also suggest you take a video recorder or similar and blog the proof.

HS2 Roadshow Deceit

This post makes many points which are obvious, but the Department of Transport pretends to have missed them.

1. The current HS2 Consultation Roadshow is not a consultation, it is a propaganda war.
2. The two sides in the propaganda war are hopelessly mismatched.

Check out the reality. The Roadshow was today in Balsall Common. At one end of the car park was HS2.  They had a main booth, another one to demo the noise it would make, 3 gazebos, a lorry full of leaflets, and lots of men in suits.

At the other end of the car park were the anti-HS2 people:

As you can see, they had a table and a few placards.

Inside the HS2 booths there was this panel:

Note the Department of Transport’s logo on the top right. So much for the government not yet having ‘made up its mind’.  The point is, there was no panel putting forward the case against HS2.

This was not a consultation – an attempt to find out what people wanted. If you spoke to a suit employed by HS2 criticising the plans, they did not make note of your comments – they argued against them. Obviously, since they work for HS2.

It was not a consultation. If it were, it would be conducted by an unbiased independent organisation, such as the Electoral Reform Society or an opinion poll company. Having the ‘consultation’ carried out by HS2 means, again obviously, that the process would be biased.  The wording of the questions on the consultation questionnaire has obvious biasses.

Of course the Department of Transport know this, and that in reality this is actually an attempt to persuade people that it won’t be too bad, and that its all for the good of the nation. The sad thing about that is the blatant unfairness of the process. At one end of the car park were the government – at the other, the people:

Do they look like they have an appropriate level of resource to promote their cause?

The only power those people have is through the ballot box. The Government should take note – people do not want HS2, and if they go ahead regardless, many Tory MPs will loose their seats. In particular, Caroline Spelman.

Pickles forces radioactive waste land fill

Secretary of State Eric Pickles has allowed dumping radioactive waste at a landfill site, despite opposition from – well, just about everyone.  In a referendum the vote was 98% against. The County Council refused it. The local Tory MP opposed it. But Pickles accepted it. The BBC Report is here.

Its being suggested that this shows the Localism Bill to be a joke, in that the wishes of local people are being ignored. In fact this was signalled in November 2010 when the Bill was first published. The example DCLG gave at that time was High speed rail – local opposition would be over-ruled centrally.

So Pickles’ judgement flags two points. One is that the Big Society does not mean that – it means Small Government. But the Small Government will still ignore what people want.

The second point is about nuclear power. You are going to have it, and nuclear waste, whether you like it or not. So there is no point protesting.

But actually, there is.

What does ‘mobility’ mean?

Nick Clegg is this morning unveiling attempts to promote mobility. This has two parts – internships in the Civil Service, and in the private sector. The idea is that internships in the Civil Service will become open and advertised, and informal internships will be put to an end by 2012 and all vacancies advertised on a central civil service website. Why wait until 2012? A minor point. In the private sector, companies will be asked to sign a new compact including a commitment to ensuring fair access to internships. Not exactly a seismic shift.

Neither is this new. The Northcote-Trevelyan Report on reforming the Civil Service was published in 1854, so we are not exactly rushing into this. The Report recommended appointments were on the basis of examinations, and that these should be open to all, provided they had good character references and a medical certificate of health.This was the sensible basis for the organisation which ran the British Empire.

Clegg has been talking about mobility for some time. In August 2010 he said

“The relationship between social mobility and a high-skill economy cuts both ways. One of the main engines of upwards social mobility is the creation of more professional and highly-skilled jobs, creating what social scientists call ‘more room at the top’. And this, in turn, increases the opportunities for people to move up.”

This indicates how he thinks about mobility, on the basis of ‘room at the top’ and ‘moving up’. The idea is that everyone is ranked or ordered by some measure, such as wealth, power, social status, wealth of parents and so on. Then over time we see how that ranking changes. A society where the ranking changes a lot is mobile – otherwise not.

When the hereditary peers were chucked out of the Lords in 1999, a significant number of them were Plantagenets – suggesting rather low levels of mobility over six or seven hundred years. But let’s not rush things.

On the other hand this ‘ranking’ notion means that for everyone who moves up the pecking order, someone else must move down. So clever little Ruxana from a poverty-stricken background will move up, replacing Tim Nicebutdim who went to Eton but could never get the idea of what was going on around him. It is assumed the mobility is on the basis of ‘merit’, in an undefined sort of way.

The idea of ‘more room at the top’ envisions a situation where we can all somehow move up, with no-one moving down. But this loses the clear picture of mobility relating to ranking. Instead it suggests that all members of our community somehow all do better. The term ‘better’ is not made clear, but it sounds good – who would disagree?

The idea of open internships in the Civil Service is obviously good, but the ‘Fast-track’ scheme has been going for some time. And this is a superficial move which will be ineffectual. An internee from a deprived background having experienced a poor education, socially and technically, will not do well in the process.

What we actually need to be concerned with is levels of inequality. If we are all going to be able to move up, then we must all experience from early childhood a lack of poverty and deprivation, a stable home and an effective education. But levels of inequality rose during the Labour administration, and will surely get far worse under Coalition cuts, since we are not actually all in it together.

So if you don’t think about Clegg’s ideas too much, it seems like everyone’s a winner and its a great scheme. Just don’t think too much.

You can think what you like – if its the same as everyone else

David Cameron has supported this ruling that a Christian couple should be banned from fostering children because they believe homosexuality is wrong.

This is complete rubbish.

I am an atheist, not a Christian, and I do not believe homosexuality is wrong. But I do believe people should be allowed to believe what they want to.  What about “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”, which Voltaire never said? There are many countries where people cannot say what they think -  they are forced to dress in certain ways, act in certain ways and pledge love and allegiance to murderous dictators. But here in the ‘free West’ we are supposed to have freedom of thought. Actually, no.

If this applies to foster parents, it should logically apply to biological parents as well. So pregnant women should be required to answer a questionnaire:

1. Do you think homosexuality is wrong?

2. Do you think we should leave the EU?

3. Should we bring back hanging?

4. Do you shop atTesco’s

5. Do you watch TV every night?

4. Are you now, or have you ever been, a Conservative?

6. Do you like salt and vinegar on your chips?

7. Do you believe in the 4 4 2 system?

Anyone answering incorrectly should have their children taken into care. Heaven knows we can’t have people thinking for themselves.

 

University fees : the hole in OFFA’s dyke

OFFA has today published details (pdf) of how universities can charge annual tuition fees over £6000, to support the Government’s plans to raise them – even though Clegg pledged to abolish them..

The spin on this is that we don’t need to worry that only the children of rich people will be able to get a degree, because universities that want to charge more than £6000 will also have to offer bursaries and fee-waivers which will enable applicants from poorer backgrounds to get in cheap.

In fact, check out what the OFFA document actually says. Universities must submit for approval an ‘access agreement’ which sets out  ”the additional access measures you commit to put in place to sustain or improve access and, where appropriate, student retention and success (ensuring that under‐represented students access the full benefits of higher education)”

So what is an ‘access measure’? The document goes on:

“Access measures can include outreach, entry and retention work (including student successand employability); other policies or activities that are likely to support widened participation such as the development and use of contextual data in admissions processes and in targeting outreach, or the improvement of school and college links; and financial support targeted at students from low income backgrounds or other disadvantaged students.”

‘Outreach’ means going into schools and persuading students to apply. Targetted outreach means going into comprehensive schools, not Eton. ‘Contextual data’ means you go into schools that have a lot of pupils who get free school meals.

All of which costs almost nothing. Note that financial support comes last in the list of access measures, even though that is the only thing which might persuade low income families to consider a degree course.

In addition to this deception, there are two other major issues.  The first is that this is a distraction from the fact that even without an access agreement, a university can still double its tuition fees from £3000 to £6000. This is not a criticism of the universities – these increases are forced upon them by the coalition’s slashing of the teaching grant, which previously was the main way that courses were paid for.

Secondly, the abolition of the EMA means that low income families will not even reach the starting line. That £30 a week paid for bus fares to college, and persuaded parents to not pressurise youngsters into dropping out and trying to get a job. With no EMA, students from disadvantaged backgrounds will not even sit A levels and BTEC Nationals, and will not be able to apply for a course in Higher Education.

Sadly this will mean the inequalities in our society, which grew under the Labour administration, will now become outrageously large – something we will all suffer from.