Eyes to the right

When one person dumps another, it is not unusual for them to suggest that the pair remain friends. ‘I already have enough friends,’ is, apparently, an increasingly elicited response.

Iain Duncan Smith appears to share that sentiment. When it comes to making friends and influencing people, the Conservative MP has concentrated on the latter activity since his lacklustre spell as leader of the opposition ended with a vote of no confidence in 2003.

Today, few pay much mind to that defeat, though this is perhaps as much a sign of Mr Duncan Smith’s effete leadership than the strengths of what came after. Those strengths are, though, significant.

In 2004, the former soldier set up the Centre for Social Justice, a centre right think tank known for sound analysis and intellectual rigour. As its chair, he has carved a niche for himself as the architect of Conservative social policy, being described in the press as party leader David Cameron’s ‘guru’ and promised a central role in a Cameron government’s plans to ‘mend broken Britain’ should one win power later this year.

Social housing rests at the heart of Mr Duncan Smith’s vision for mending the nation. ‘It is vital because if you look at the problems of social breakdown you then, of course, do need to look at [social] housing estates,’ he says, fingering a copy of Housing Poverty, the CSJ report from 2008 which contains his suggested remedies. It, along with reams of printed emails, adorns the coffee table in his rather grand, coveted riverside office in the Palace of Westminster.

‘Without really thinking about it, we have begun to ghettoise the concept of poverty so that it exists hugely and disproportionately on housing estates; and the same goes for broken families, abuse, violence,’ he adds.

While Mr Duncan Smith’s ideas may be influential, they are winning him few friends in the housing industry. Critics branded his views ‘frightening’ following a speech at last month’s Chartered Institute of Housing presidential dinner in which he made clear his thoughts on housing and poverty. These included claiming that impoverished children suffer irreparable damage unless helped before the age of three, and had one former Labour housing minister barely able to contain his rage.

Mr Duncan Smith is surprised, but not concerned by such reaction. ‘I’m not there to pat them on the back,’ he says as though stating the obvious, adding defiantly ‘actually I had a very positive response’. The 55-year-old, whose successful bid for the Tory party leadership in 2001 was said to have Margaret Thatcher’s backing, suggests the unpopularity of his ideas could be because they would create ‘more work’ for the sector. ‘There’s a lot of complacency,’ he adds for good measure.

Love them or loathe them, one thing social landlords can’t do is ignore the proposals emanating from the CSJ.

Mr Duncan Smith’s assertion that Grant Shapps is ‘very receptive’ to his ideas is backed up by the shadow housing minister himself. ‘He’s enormously influential on shadow ministers like me,’ says Mr Shapps with customary zeal. ‘We are massive fans of IDS’s work, and look forward to being able to do some of what he outlined.’

What worries many is that ‘some’ includes the CSJ’s most controversial proposed housing reform: scrapping security of tenure for new social tenants and new social homes with the ultimate aim of ‘progressively eradicating it’. While Mr Shapps insists ‘that’s not an idea we’re pursuing now’, Mr Duncan Smith says he ‘wouldn’t be surprised’ if a victorious Conservative government adopted it.

He argues they should because the current right to a life tenancy does little more than trap households in their existing lives.

‘It doesn’t do them any good, because the life long right to tenure they have is in the house that they’re in, so it doesn’t reflect changing circumstances,’ says Mr Duncan Smith.

What of the sense of security a home for life affords? ‘A sense of security is “I have a house over my head and I don’t want to be here forever”. We talk to most social tenants and they don’t want to be there forever. They want to move on.’

Increasing mobility is the defining feature of the proposals in both the CSJ’s housing paper and its well-received counterpart on benefit reform. (Privately some Labour politicians will admit to admiring the recommended overhaul of housing benefit, which would see tenants encouraged to negotiate rents with private landlords by the promise of pocketing a share of any reduction they secure). Mr Duncan Smith argues passionately that existing policy contrives to concentrate social meltdown within the nation’s social households.

‘We want to be breaking down the big estates and try to find a way of making housing a portable resource for more of these tenants. Because that would encourage them to move to find work. And that’s the biggest problem for them; housing is not an asset to them, it’s like a deadweight,’ he says.

He echoes much of his CIH speech as he paints an utterly depressing picture of modern social housing, residents ‘blighted by their conditions’.

‘Say you’re a struggling lone parent with a child and say you’re in difficulty, the chances of that child seeing any other kind of role model is nil… They’re unlikely to see somebody who goes to work regularly, comes home, brings money home. You know, where people sit down regularly to a meal.’

Social landlords should employ a system of rewards which enable them to operate more like the private sector, he says, outlining one of the CSJ’s proposals. For example, he would like ‘good tenants’ who pay their rent in a timely fashion and look for jobs to be offered a discounted stake in their home. That asset could then be realised to enable a household to ‘break out’ of poverty and encourage others to follow suit. ‘There is nothing more galvanising than having a shot at your aspiration,’ he says imperiously.

Housing staff would have to make this work in practice, he says. ‘It’s obviously up to the housing authorities as to how they would run that, but I think it’s in their interests.’

What follows is a call to arms likely to raise hackles yet further. ‘You have housing officers who should be a real source of information on what goes on in those houses. It’s now time to lock into that. You should take an interest about what happens to your tenants. You should be involved in helping them find work. Not just be there simply to be about rent, and repairs,’ he froths. ‘I made that clear in the speech.’

Ah yes, the speech. If the success of mending Britain depends on housing professionals, shouldn’t he be doing more to win them round? ‘The challenge for him is to use language that doesn’t alienate people,’ reckons David Ireland, chief executive of the Empty Homes Agency and a member of the panel which helped put the Housing Poverty report together. Conversely he urges IDS detractors ‘to look beyond [the language] because we’ve got to fix this problem’.

If they do, it seems unlikely that Mr Duncan Smith will meet them half-way. ‘If you’ve already made your mind up [to oppose my ideas], then you’re political. And if you’re political then I’m never going to change your mind on anything. If you’re in this business because you hate the Conservatives, well that’s fine. It’s not a problem to me,’ he says breezily.

He must have a lot of friends already.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment