Oxford professor Danny Dorling is the rising star of radical
sociology.
Some of us heard him speak in
Witney during the
2010 election campaign.
He has his critics, but he has an impressive grasp of statistics and
deploys them with devastating effect.
A review of his latest
book,
All That Is Solid: The Great Housing Disaster, appeared in
Metro last week.
Did you know that in 2012 one in every four new jobs in Britain went to
a new estate agent?
What’s that? Yes,
someone’s definitely doing alright. And
those who aren’t still hope to. Dorling
wants to challenge the idea of a home as something for which we incur titanic
debts in the hope of profiting from buyers even more desperate than us further
down the line. For him, as for any sane
person, homes are shelter first and assets second. Yet we seem to have lost sight of the idea
that they are something basic, like education or healthcare, whose provision
public policy could address. The loudest
complaints are not about homelessness but about being unable to get on to the
‘property ladder’. The London parties have no answer because they
too are wrapped up in the idea that the job of government is to enrich competing
individuals and families, rather than to enrich society and so spare them the
trouble.
For Dorling, the solution isn’t to
build more houses
everywhere, at the expense of the environment and primarily for the benefit of
landowners, developers and the banks.
His claim is that Britain
has plenty of housing but doesn’t use it efficiently.
It’s a bold claim, undoubtedly over-stated
given that the population really
is growing and really is spreading out, with
average household size declining.
But
let’s examine his solution, which could make some inroads into the problem,
however big it happens to be overall.
The answer isn’t the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ but heavier taxes on
multiple properties. Why is that
politically a non-starter? Dorling’s
claim, reasonably enough, is that MPs won’t vote against practices that benefit
them – and, we might add, benefit them probably more than any other group. He brings up an interview in which David
Cameron appeared to forget just how many homes he owned. (Regional government, allowing almost all legislators to live within commuting distance of their assembly, would be a very much better bargain for the taxpayer than Westminster.)
The social problems caused by multiple home ownership don’t
correlate with economic and political
power, do they?
Where
are the holiday second homes?
Largely on the peripheries: Cornwall,
Wales, the Lake District,
coastal East Anglia, and
some parts of Wessex (the south coast, Exmoor and the Cotswolds).
And where do their owners live?
Largely in the south-eastern quadrant, we
suggest.
The power certainly isn’t where the homes
are, nor where the desperate, badly housed locals are.
So we need to take it back through meaningful
devolution and start putting people before property.
As well as the homes that are empty for most of the time,
there are the homes that are empty the whole of the time, the long-term vacant
properties, some of which in Wessex
have been empty for 30 years. Why? To free market theorists, such a waste of
assets is inexplicable. Their economics
textbooks say it can’t happen. The
reasons why it happens are complex. One
can be that the owner has died and their estate hasn’t been sorted out, or
there are family disagreements or joint ownerships where the owners no longer
speak to each other. The owner may be in
prison. Or aged or in poor health and
just not bothered. Sometimes there may
be negative equity, and so difficulty in funding any necessary
improvements. Yet these are assets that
could be providing shelter, without damaging the environment. Why is more not done to fill the empties? Why are we so tolerant, equally of so many wasted
opportunities AND of the wholly needless destruction of farmland that results?
Taxation is a relatively benign way of rebalancing the
housing market in favour of local need.
It falls short of the outright confiscation that might appeal to some of
the market’s most scarred victims. But
it would give them enough hope not to reach for the petrol can and the matches
to make their views felt. Dorling
suggests removing the limit on council tax banding so that the wealthiest pay in line
with the value of their multiple properties.
A land tax would address a whole range of problems, while higher
inheritance tax would do something to tackle the huge accumulation of unearned
wealth in London
and its suburbs.
The next question is what to do with the money raised.
If local communities need affordable housing,
why not provide some?
Not necessarily by
building new houses, which often come at an environmental cost, remember.
But by buying up existing ones and letting
them out to the sons and daughters of the parish. It’s not beyond the wit of lawyers to devise
a system of lettings, leases, covenants or parish council consent to guarantee
that the recycling of such housing always prioritises those with a local
connection.
Through such means it would
be possible to build up a two-tier housing market of the kind that helps keep
the Channel Islands as they
are, relatively undeveloped, with enough housing
for the locals, plus a few to spare, in their case for rich tax exiles.
Instead of doing what’s right for us in the round, we
currently provide affordable homes by imposing them as a requirement on
housebuilders.
And to sweeten the pill we
let them build two market houses for every affordable one.
We need a new model that allows the
affordable ones to be built, if suitable sites exist, without the market ones
coming along as the ball-and-chain.
We
could let local councils build them, and call them ‘council houses’.
That way, housing
misery need never be a
source of private profit ever again.
Which, of course, is exactly why a solution as obvious as that enjoys
no
mainstream political support.
It’s through formulating such policies that
we can begin to envisage the ‘reconquest’ of Wessex assets
from the London
and global interests that have failed us. We need to take back our
housing, our water, our electricity, our trains, our land, in short, our
future. Can this be done without devolution, given the legal and
financial screws that the London regime continually places on local
expenditure? No. That is why we need devolution.