Campaign with us for equality

+ How did we get here?

Since the Second World War there have been two distinct mind sets at play.

Immediately post WW2 there was global cooperation to solve social injustice and poverty. A New World Order was created with monetary reforms, the writing off of public debt and a subsequent transfer of wealth in the direction of the poorer in society. This narrative paved the way for the creation of the welfare state, the NHS and the New Towns Act (general needs housing for all) social housing programme. Both Labour and Conservative governments supported these policies during this time. This led to the most equal times in recent history through the 60’s and 70’s, with a focus on communities and pulling together, culminating in a sub 3% poverty level.

This changed dramatically post 1979 with the advent of Neoliberalism and a worldwide focus on “rolling back the state”, deregulating capital markets, privatisation and the elimination of price controls. The 1980 Housing Act which gave council tenants the Right to Buy their homes at large discounts, coupled with restrictions of the ability of local authorities to build new homes, quickly diminished the social housing stock. Many of these ex local authority houses ending up in the private rented sector at about double the cost of social housing. Around this time there was a shift in public behaviour towards individualism and consumerism and a change in narrative towards housing being an investment. Margaret Thatcher famously quoted “there is no such thing as society”, and by 1987 poverty had risen to 20%, a figure strikingly similar to today's.

When private rents were deregulated in 1989, housing benefit was intended to ‘take the strain’ for those on low incomes.Instead it inflated market rents, causing the benefits bill to rise from £6bn to £22bn. Attempts to curb this by placing ever tighter caps on benefits did nothing to conflate rents, since the overall scarcity of housing was by then acute and has been growing steadily since.

Whilst the Private Rented Sector largely serves its purpose for students, transient young professionals and those in immediate housing need following a change in life circumstances, it has increasingly become the only choice for vulnerable people whose needs it was never intended to serve.

Data from a recent English Housing Survey noted that 70% of private rented tenants surveyed say they’re renting in the PRS because they have no other option. Shockingly one third of the Private Rented Sector houses vulnerable tenants, in housing that either fails to meet the decent homes standard, is overcrowded, or is so costly the tenants are living below the poverty line.

This is a growing problem, with the PRS being 21% larger than it was in 2008, and since 2012 housing more people than the social rented sector.

With the average PRS tenancy length at 20 months, compared to 11 years in Germany, it is clear that a different policy approach can restore security in the PRS. However with responsibility for renting policy sitting across five different government departments, and an astonishing lack of consistency with 18 housing ministers since 1997, there is little wonder as to why our current policy is out of date, with recent amendments uncoordinated.

The private sector itself hasn’t been coming up with any answers either, with very little innovation in the space that directly benefits those who are vulnerable or on low incomes. It’s also worth noting that the current UK housing crisis is in no shape or form a shortage of supply. The 2011 census showed us that there are 1.2 bedrooms per capita in the UK as a whole, with 1.01 in London, more than ever previously on record.

That our current housing stock is frequently under-occupied by the wealthiest in society, and treated as purely an investment that can be left completely unoccupied by domestic and foreign buyers, is well worth consideration. Indeed it might be wise to think of the housing crisis as a poor distribution and use of inequitable housing instead, and focus efforts on discussing how we use and distribute our existing housing stock, and question for whom our new houses are built.

In summary, we have a record number of vulnerable people living in expensive, substandard accommodation, in a sector not fit for purpose, gaining very little government regulation or long- term strategic planning.