Localism not localis-ism

Posted by: Jules Birch

13/04/2010

Well there it is in the Conservative manifesto in black and white: ‘we will respect the tenures and rents of social housing tenants’. The Tories are working very hard to shake off the accusation that they will introduce Localis-style deregulation in social housing if they win the election. 

Grant Shapps complained last week about Labour ‘spreading unfounded and baseless statements about David Cameron, myself and Conservative policies on social tenure and rents’ and said his party had no plans to change security of tenure for current or future tenants or raise rents to market levels.

In February, Labour’s Two Nations also promised to ‘protect and respect the rights of social tenants’. There is still some wiggle room there - the manifesto does not actually spell out that they mean future as well as current tenants - but it will now be much harder for the Conservatives to do anything that smacks of deregulation without being accused of breaking a manifesto commitment.

Elsewhere, the manifesto goes over some familiar territory such as equity stakes for ‘good social tenants’, a pilot of a new right to move scheme, local housing trusts and scrapping planning targets for new homes and replacing them with local incentives.

There is also a very vague promise that ‘we will make it easier for everyone to get onto the housing ladder’.

However, while ‘deliver more affordable homes’ is one of three key pledges flowing from the party’s commitments to ‘make politics more local’, there is no mention of investment.

So much rests on the leap of faith involved in believing that local communities will use localism to approve more homes rather than as a charter for nimbyism. As in the earlier housing green paper, Strong Foundations, it’s notable that the Conservatives have dropped some touchstone policies of the past, including the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants and restoration of right to buy discounts. There’s also what I think is a new commitment on homelessness - not just to more accurate street counts but to ensuring that ‘a minister in each relevant department has homelessness in their brief’.

All in all, the manifesto seems determined to avoid any ‘nasty party’ connotations on housing policy. In which case someone might like to have a word with Iain Duncan Smith. Why was the ex-Tory leader and possible future minister for fixing ‘broken Britain’ telling Inside Housing only last month that he ‘wouldn’t be surprised’ if a victorious Conservative government scrapped security of tenure? 

Why give such a prominent role to someone whose think-tank argued that ‘the law must be changed so that councils and housing associations are free to let social homes on whatever terms they judge most appropriate to meet the particular needs of incoming tenants’ if you have no plans to do so? And what are the implications for housing and tenants of ‘a welfare system that is fair but firm’?