David Bookbinder: Looking behind the manifesto soundbites on housing

It’s a funny old business looking through the main parties’ election pledges on housing. Some good intentions around, and some fairly radical ideas, especially from the smaller parties, any of whom could, of course, be in an influential position if their votes are relied on in the coming years.

But also a heck of a lot of misconceptions, where it can be difficult to decide whether the party in question (a) knows it’s a nonsense but thinks it sounds good anyway, or (b) genuinely believes they’re proposing something that can make a real difference.

Here’s my top six manifesto misconceptions, some shared by multiple parties and some by just one or two. It’s a personal take – other views are available!!

Misconception 1 - The planning system can easily be overhauled

I guess it’s good that many parties recognise planning as a barrier, but the notion that it can be radically turned around to allow speedier new build and taking over of empty/derelict property seems incredibly optimistic – naïve even. That would need relaxing or repealing some legislation, a total culture change, and a huge increase in local authority staffing levels. Good luck with that.

Misconception 2 – Further enhancing new build standards should be a priority

To be fair, only one party’s really pushing for this, and some parties actively oppose any further standards and may even want to ditch some current ones. Looks like we need to keep reinforcing the message that further additions to the standards – especially the utter madness of a Passivhaus equivalent – will just further price us out of having any kind of sustainable new build programme, let alone one providing up to 15,000 social and affordable homes every year.

Misconception 3 – Pension fund investment can create more social rented homes

Big yawn there. Social housing is provided through a combination of grant subsidy and private finance. Where that private finance comes from doesn’t really make a lot of difference, and there’s plenty available. Pension funds, like all other lenders, want their returns, and the same applies to any lending by the Scottish National Investment Bank (talked up by at least one party). All this is proposing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. The big issue is how much grant is needed to make a project stack up.

Misconception 4 – We can end homelessness

This isn’t helped by the same message being promoted by some housing and homelessness bodies who perhaps should know better. People will always fall into homelessness for a whole variety of reasons – yes we can aim to prevent it wherever possible, and provide permanent housing so much more quickly, but we can’t make it go away altogether so shouldn’t we stop pretending we can?

Misconception 5 – Dropping the 2022 provisions on Local Connection has opened the floodgates to ‘non-locals’

This sounds teccy but is a really sensitive Election issue as it has an undercurrent of blaming asylum seekers and refugees for the housing emergency. It’s NOT the SG’s dropping of the Local Connection provisions in 2022 that enabled new refugees to come from elsewhere in the UK to apply for housing here – this change only opened up rights for homeless people in Scotland to present to another Scottish council.

New refugees have long had the ability to come to Scotland from elsewhere in the UK, attracted since 2012 by its abolition of the ‘priority need’ system. What’s made the big difference in the last 2-3 years is the Home Office’s fast-tracking of asylum decisions.

One or two parties want to bring back priority need rationing to Scotland, saying it will mean more housing going to ‘locals’. Well it might bring us more in line with England, but reintroducing it will certainly deny plenty of Scots the right to a home.

[By the way, I’m not suggesting there aren’t real challenges and tensions around this issue in some of our communities – I’m just saying that a few parties have got their facts about things wrong.]

Misconception 6 – Wresting control of empty private homes should be easy

OK well none of the parties actually say that, but many include fairly bland statements about it and seem to me to overlook how incredibly tricky and resource-intensive this is, not to mention the increasing likelihood of human rights challenges from owners if more of them are forced to sell. All well-intended, definitely, but so much more fraught than the soundbites suggest.

To finish on a positive, whilst I’d still very much doubt that housing is a major Election issue on every doorstep, I’m pretty sure that there’s more material on housing in the manifestos than has been the case previously. Guess that’s largely down to the housing emergency, but it does at least mean that more thought than ever before has gone into how things might be improved after 7 May.