黑洞社区

Two big coalition government capital investment programmes have just reached important milestones. The celebrations were held just 12 miles apart, each complete with government minister, press release and photo shoot. But only one got any headlines.

That was chancellor George Osborne鈥檚 launch of the Northern Hub rail investment programme. This is a project to catch the eye, certainly 鈥� an 拢800m section of the biggest rail enhancement programme since Queen Victoria鈥檚 day. It extends the electrified mainline network in all directions from Manchester to Leeds, Liverpool and Preston. It is a clear signal that the coalition is serious about rebalancing the geography of our economy.

So what of the other event? That was the celebration of one of the best kept secrets of this leak-prone era, five times bigger than the Northern Hub investment: the government鈥檚 social homes programme.

Here鈥檚 a counter-intuitive fact: this government will be the first since 1979 to increase the supply of social and affordable homes for rent. That follows a loss of over a million council houses by the Tories up to 1997, and the loss of a further 420,000 homes by Labour up to 2010. In contrast, our 拢4bn programme will have increased the stock by at least 150,000 by May 2015. That鈥檚 despite ramping up the 鈥渞ight to buy鈥� scheme.

New homes have no news value. Homes not built, now that鈥檚 a story. Homes flooded, that鈥檚 even better. So there was no media scrum or special supplement in the trade press when we cut that ribbon

How did that happen? First we鈥檝e put in place a radical plan: build a new home for rent every time one is sold. Something Labour completely failed to do. Second, we鈥檝e levered in more cash from housing associations with a financial model that costs only half the subsidy per home than under Labour. I spent a lot of time as a minister at the dispatch box listening while opposition critics explained in exquisite detail just why it would never work. Of course it has, and so far we are around 90,000 social homes to the good compared to 2010.

So it was a delight to be at that second celebration marking the opening of England鈥檚 four millionth social home for rent. By a happy coincidence, that home lies in my own constituency of Hazel Grove, and is in a scheme for Stockport鈥檚 own arm鈥檚 length management organisation, Stockport Homes. After years of shrinking social housing stock and rising waiting lists, we鈥檝e bottomed out and once more have over 4 million social homes.

Back in the sixties, such a notable milestone would have led to national celebration. And if you judged it by the angst heard every week about the state of the housing market and the desperation of young couples, you might expect a little bit of interest even in today鈥檚 news-saturated environment.

You鈥檇 be wrong. New homes have no news value. Homes not built, now that鈥檚 a story. Homes flooded, that鈥檚 even better. So there was no media scrum or special supplement in the trade press when we cut that ribbon. No hard feelings, but maybe you can begin to see why the people who draw up party manifestos will have plenty to say about tax and jobs and 20 other things, but not much to say about rebuilding our social housing stock. Why not?

First, because social housing is boring. It doesn鈥檛 change voters鈥� minds. It is too techie, and the funds now pencilled in post 2015 will only build another 160,000 over three years. Never mind the policy, where鈥檚 the slogan, when we need a quarter of a million more homes every year?

Second, because social housing is embarrassing. Conservatives have got an ideological problem with it, obviously. They only agreed to replace sold homes because the Lib Dems made them. From this point of view, the sooner they all go, the better. The last thing they want to do is draw attention to the coalition鈥檚 successful rebuilding programme. Meanwhile, Labour just has a really big problem explaining why it was a good idea to get rid of 420,000 last time, but it now wants to put some back. Shouting only draws attention to the big hole in its policy bucket.

Third, because social housing is actually quite expensive. With higher space and environmental standards than in the private sector, it costs more. And with at least 拢35,000 capital subsidy per home when we鈥檝e still got a deficit to close down, a slogan-sized commitment looks unaffordable.
Which is a pity, because history shows that any sustained success at closing the gap between demand and supply will only come from a very vigorous social housebuilding programme.

Perhaps all this has reminded you that it wasn鈥檛 until the Lib Dems entered government three years ago that social housing policy picked up after decades of steep decline. It鈥檚 not yet enough, and I鈥檝e written before on what we need to do after the next general election to unlock construction of affordable homes for rent without breaking the bank (or the taxpayer). Sadly, one safe prediction about that election is that next year鈥檚 manifestos won鈥檛 have this story on their front page.

Andrew Stunell is Liberal Democrat MP for Hazel Grove and a former minister responsible for 黑洞社区 Regulations