Delivering housing for southern voters the co-operative way

Pick up a copy of a local newspaper in southern England and you won’t have to turn many pages before you see an article about the housing crisis. Hundreds of thousands of column inches every year are absorbed with issues such as the pros and cons of new developments, the problems faced by young people trying to get a toe hold on the housing ladder and the lack of provision of sheltered accommodation for the vulnerable.

The housing crisis is one of the key issues that voters are concerned about nationally. It is a policy area that is too often reduced to journalistic generalisations. The housing crisis is not solely an issue of helping young people get on to the housing ladder, or about the availability of mortgages. It is a cross- generational issue that impacts on all in society. It includes concerns about affordable rents, the rise in homelessness, the effects that changing social patterns have on housing pressures, such as people living longer and more people living alone, in addition to problems of overcrowding and under-occupancy.

All of these issues are inter-connected. But historically the policy response has not been joined-up. As a consequence, Labour’s future housing policy must be more than isolated policy responses to individual problems. It must carve out a whole new philosophical approach to how we as a nation view the home. The party that wins the trust of voters will be the one that articulates a joined-up vision that seeks to offer a fresh approach in dealing with these problems. If there ever is a correct time for knee-jerk policy responses, now is certainly not it.

The housing crisis is a policy issue familiar to politicians and voters across the UK. But it is an issue that has particular resonance for southern voters, in particular in the south-east. As part of Labour’s bid to win back the trust of southern voters, it is time for a radical re-think. It is time we unashamedly developed a policy response that is rooted in Labour values, and not uninspiring practical suggestions that have left voters unimpressed and unable to distinguish between the main parties. In short, it is time for a serious look at the co-operative approach to housing.

This article does not suggest that co-operative housing is a panacea that will solve the crisis overnight. But it does argue that the principles of co-operation and mutualism can offer a fresh way of viewing the problem and a new set of value-rooted solutions.

As it stands, there are two legally recognised forms of housing tenure, that of freeholder and leaseholder. The concept of mutual housing, under which members of a housing co-operative would own part of a dwelling, lacks legal foundation. This is why the Labour and Co-operative MP Jonathan Reynolds is currently piloting a private members’ bill through parliament, to change laws that have their origins in feudal times. Given the scale of the housing crisis, it is absurd that the law still only recognises two very narrow conceptions of ownership. The mutual housing sector has the capacity to deliver millions of co-operatively-owned homes, yet the lack of legal backing dissuades many from entering the sector.

The benefits of a co-operative approach to housing can be seen in the experience of numerous European countries. In Sweden, co-operative housing tenure was legally recognised back in 1920. As a consequence, co-op housing accounts for 18% of all homes there, whilst in the UK the figure is just 0.6%. A beefed-up mutual housing sector would mean more market choice; it would lead to more affordable rents and it would allow members of the co-operative to gain a greater share of their property as and when they could afford it, avoiding the dangers of spiralling cycles of debt that come with unsustainable mortgages.

Imagine the difference it would make to people of all ages across the south of England to know that there is a third option that doesn’t involve becoming a serial renter, vulnerable to frequent rent hikes or becoming a homeowner taking on mortgage and interest payments that will squeeze their finances for years to come. This is the promise offered by co-operative housing.

Jack Dromey, Labour’s shadow housing spokesman, has indicated that mutual housing will play a big role in Labour’s housing offer at the next election. This is clearly excellent news, but it is just the beginning of the radical re-think that is required. Co-operative housing, like the Co-op Party’s “New Foundations” model, is a classic example of the fresh thinking that Labour’s housing offer requires.

Co-operative ethics can be that joined-up, values-driven, policy response that is so needed in Labour’s housing offer. By working with the co-operative movement, Labour can develop a housing policy that examines the role of mutual retirement homes for elders, and looks at how co-op models can be used in tackling homelessness as well.

Resolving the housing crisis is not an easy task. But Labour, through its work with the co-operative movement, has the values and fresh ideas that can offer new hope in solving this entrenched policy problem. Let’s put those values to good use and deliver housing for southern voters, the co-operative way.

You can sign the petition supporting Jonathan Reynolds Co-operative Housing (Tenure) Bill here

is a Labour and Co-operative Party activist and writes here in a personal capacity.

Labour's real southern discomfort

Late last year Patrick Diamond and Giles Radice returned to take another look at Labour’s electoral fortunes in the South of England, when they published Southern Discomfort One Year On. The survey confirms something already widely understood – that Labour has a lot more to do to get itself back into a position where electoral success in the south can be realised.

In general, southern voters seem much clearer about what the Conservatives stand for than Labour, with 61% of them clear about what the Conservatives stand for set against only 37% for Labour. Voters in the south believe that Conservatives are more likely than Labour to “ensure value for money in the provision of public services such as schools and hospitals” (34% to 22%).

It’s not headline grabbing news to unearth that the south believes the Conservatives are better at Value for Money than Labour (indeed, the research didn’t grab any headlines). In fact, it would be surprising to learn that the public in any part of the UK saw Labour as guardians of thrift when it comes to spending public funds. Fairly or not, that is how Labour is viewed now. The cost of losing our economic credibility has been considerable.

The north/south divide is pertinent only in that it highlights the fact that obtaining value for money matters more in the south. Labour activists who have been on the doorstep talking to voters don’t need polls to tell them that we are less supported, and our policy platform less appreciated, in the south.

So a more interesting question to answer might be: is it possible for Labour to remain anchored in public sector dependent communities of our heartlands while at the same time regaining economic credibility in the south? It is; but only if we talk about everyday values and eschew the expensive policy solutions whose ability to tangibly improve ordinary lives seems to be a bit too hit and miss. It is for that reason that we should welcome Liam Byrne's recent Guardian article in which he talks about "something for something" welfare reform.

Is there really that much difference in the values of the a median income family from a traditional Labour heartland and a similar family living in a Surrey or Kent commuter town that hasn’t ever elected a Labour MP? One identifies their values with Labour and one sees us as standing in opposition to them. Surely this is Labour’s real Southern Discomfort?

2011 By election analysis

Yesterday's council by election in Westbourne ward on Brighton & Hove Council, was the 53rd and final southern by election of 2011.

In all, Labour won seven of the 53 contests that took place in the south this year, although in nine of those contests we failed to put up a candidate. Two of the victories were in safe Labour seats, but the other five were important gains from both the Conservatives (in Camborne & Redruth, Stroud and Great Yarmouth) and the Liberal Democrats (Bristol North West & Norwich South).

These relatively modest set of gains can be explained by the propensity of the seats that fell vacant to be "safe" for the party which held them: two thirds of the seats contested stayed in the hands of the party that held the seat. Where Labour was second in a seat, we either won it or maintained a second place in the poll. Indeed, in two of our gains we came from 4th and as far back in the field as 5th place to claim victory.

The first by elections of 2012 have already been called, with Labour's Roger Sterry defending a seat on the Forest of Dean BC (Conderford West) and Roma Mills (a former PPC) seeking to gain Batchwood on St Albans DC from the Lib Dems.

In May a number of local authorities will contest local elections, with a number of Labour groups well placed to take control (Reading, Thurrock & Southampton spring to mind). And we shouldn't forget the Police Commissioner elections in November (or the Mayoral ballot planned in Bristol).

All these elections are important, and Southern Front continues to challenge local parties in the South to ensure they contest as many scheduled election contest as possible. It is understood that in "all out" elections this isn's always possible, but there really isn't an excuse when it comes to local by elections. A candidate and ten supporting signatories isn't that much to ask, surely?

Parliamentary selection update

The NEC looks set to announce the latest round of seats that will select their parliamentary candidates in 2012. With the exception of High Peak in Derbyshire, all the other seats are Labour marginals in the South and East of England.

The seats due to kick off their selection process in 2012 are:

• Billericay & Great Dunmow

• Bristol North West

• Bristol West

• Cambridge

• Dorset South

• Great Yarmouth

• Norwich North

• Swindon North

• Watford

Because of the lack of certainty created by the Brighton boundary review one or more of the Brighton area seats may begin their selection, but subject to the outcome of consultation with the local parties.

A decision is expected in January as to which of these seats will be All Women Shortlist and which will be open selections.

So far six PPCs have been selected in the South: Anne Snelgrove (Swindon South), Andrew Pakes (Milton Kenyes South), David Ellesmere (Ipswich), Bob Blizzard (Waveney), Sharon Taylor (Stevenage) and Clive Lewis (Norwich South). Four other selections are due to conclude befoer the end of 2011 - Thurrock, Hastings, Harlow and Stroud.

Refounding Labour – Conference 2011 and beyond

The following is a report back by DAN CHAPMAN, DEB GARDINER, SIMON BURGESS, KAREN LANDLES and MARTIN PHILLIPS – SE CLP representatives on the National Policy Forum

When he became leader of the party, Ed Miliband announced the Refounding Labour consultation to review the way the party works. The consultation received over 3,000 individual responses and over 150 from local parties. We took part in debates in local parties and regional events and many of you also contacted us with your views. A draft report was produced in August and a final report was debated at Conference. We wanted to report back on that debate and the outcome, as there are some important changes in the ways local parties work – and there are also some outstanding issues that haven’t been resolved yet, such as possible changes in the role of Conference and voting at Conference.

As we are sure you will have read in the media, the final document debated at Conference was only issued a couple of days before the debate. Together with NPF colleagues across the country, we made it very clear that this was totally unacceptable – but the whole process since the closing of the consultation has been slow because of negotiations between the leadership, PLP, NEC and unions. Despite those discussions, the most controversial issues were not agreed at all and so the report does say “further discussion will be needed” on several matters, included the policy-making process. We also passed on the views yet again that we heard from almost all CLPs ad members we talked to – that the continued debate over party structures means we are not starting the vital work in developing the policies we will take into the next election. We need to resolve the remaining structural issues quickly so that we can produce winning policies for our campaigns.


REFOUNDING LABOUR DECISIONS ON PARTY STRUCTURE

The party should be community-based and campaigning

New Clause I that mentions community campaigning
New objectives for CLPs and branches
Training for members
Let local parties organise the way that suits them
Local Government Committees to be replaced by Local Campaign Forums that meet to plan campaigns

Party to become a mass movement

Registered supporters who should be invited to some meetings and socials (at least one policy discussion a year), and asked to help in campaigns
Registers supporters to get a vote at Conference – between 3% and 9%, depending on numbers, to come equally from LP, union and PLP sections
Strengthened commitment to equal opportunities
Work with unions to have more joint activities
Use our campaigning methods to help community campaigns
Invite national organisations (charities, pressure groups and voluntary groups) who share some aims and views with us to commit to long-term dialogue with the party. How this will happen is not yet clear.

A party we can be proud of

Leader and deputy to have rights and duties set out
Leader appoints shadow cabinet
Rights and duties of MPs set out
Contracts for candidate at all levels
More engagement of councillors in party discussions

Other items

Local party AGMs not held in run up to elections, so moved to Summer
CLPs to have development plans approved by regional boards
Regional Boards to have strategic function
New distribution of subs – CLPs no longer charged for Contact Creator, Election Insurance and Euro elections. They will get a flat annual fee + amount per member. Plus new local joining rate of £15
Councillors to pay a levy from allowances (2%) instead of ALC subscription

Please let us know your views on these changes.

POLICY MAKING

The review of policy making did produce some recommendations, and we are pleased that there appears to be progress on concerns that you (and we) have raised again and again.

Most members support the retention of the NPF model, which allows debate of an enormous range of subjects in depth. However, this review must also be the last chance to get the NPF process right. The leadership have acknowledged that members feel disengaged from and suspicious of the NPF. What happens to submissions is opaque; there are no reports back to the party between annual conferences; shadow cabinet teams discuss policy ideas in isolation; and, as the leadership now recognise, party members have sometimes been right on issues such as council housing and PFI when those in Westminster have been wrong.

The report on policy making at Conference was an interim report – there will be further consultation until the end of January, although as NPF reps we believe that final decisions could have been made by now. Peter Hain recently sent an email to party members about this consultation. We would like as many members and local parties to contribute as possible, as it will help us make the case for your views to be heard. The link to the party website page for the consultation is here .

Some changes that we have put forward after consultation with local parties have been agreed:

More involvement for party members:
We need to explain the process and how people can get involved
There should be more local debates (many parties do not have any at all)
It should be easier for people to send in submissions

Make it transparent:
Give feedback
Have an online tracking system for submissions, so that those sending submissions can see what is happening
NPF commission members must give more detailed feedback on submissions, including the results of discussions
Use technology to hold debates

Reach out to the public:
Engage outside organisations and speakers at debates
Invite registered supporters to discussions
Topical issues – relevant policy commissions will deal with these

NPF meetings:
Too few of them and discussions are not always meaningful
Allow socialist societies to attend, to add their expertise to debates
NPF reps to have a job description and contract
New intranet to allow NPF members to communicate with each other

Policy Commissions
Need to report back
Take evidence from experts, not just party and union members
Better documents
All reps to be able to attend meetings

Conference:
Votes as now
Minority positions from NPF can be discussed at Conference if they achieve sufficient NPF support
Debates need to be linked to documents, not just free-for-all

As reps our greatest frustration is that our biggest complaint has still not been resolved. We are elected by party members to be representatives and yet we still have no official access to mailing lists of those we are supposed to represent. You are reading this report because we have your email address, but many SE members never see our reports. This must change.

We also agree with the vast majority of members we speak to – it is time that we should be debating policy, not how we have our discussions. It is 18 months since the general election and although the next general election could be 3 ½ years away, elections are not won in 6 weeks. We have elections for councils and in London next year, county elections in 2013 and euro elections in 2014. The public want to know what we stand for and what we would do if elected. So as NPF reps, we are constantly pushing the shadow cabinet to start looking at the biggest issues in detail. Already we have sent our own consultations to SE parties and members about some issues, and we will do more of these – we hope that you will be able to use our surveys to hold your own debates in your local parties. As we know from council housing, PFI and other issues, party members often recognise problems before those in Westminster, and we can use the NPF process to highlight problems where we need policies.

So we urge you to hold policy discussions locally, and please ask us along to take part, so we know our views.

You can always contact us through our website www.npf-se.org.uk and there is also more information on party policy-making and the policies of our opponents on the site too.

Home ownership slipping out of each for millions

Yesterday's Times (£) reported a study by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) that shows, according to the Times, "home ownership slipping further out of reach for millions". According to the study it will take on average over 15 years to save for a 20% deposit. Outside London, the wait is longest in South East (18yr 8mths), East of England (16yr 5mths) and South West (16yr 2mths). Millions face the prospect of decades in rented accommodation with little prospect of becoming home owners until they are in their forties.

The report highlights the plight of the Cheshire family from Stevenage . Mr & Mrs Cheshire live in rented accommodation with their 2 young children. The couple - who both work full time - have been forced to move homes twice since their four year old daughter was born. They aspire to home ownership and the security it provides, but cannot afford to buy and do not qualify for social housing.

As the Prime Minister prepares to launch the Government's housing strategy on Monday, Labour's frontbench needs to ensure that we have something to offer couples like the Cheshires. Voters in marginal seats like Stevenage need to know that not only does Labour understands their hopes and aspirations, but that we have policies that will help them realise them. Helping create a new generation of home owners is one way to do that.

Conservative plans for an estuary Airport

Although the Coalition insist they do not support plans for a new airport in the Thames estuary, that has not stopped high profile supporters – most notably London Mayor Boris Johnson, from promoting the case. Earlier this month saw the publication of the ‘Thames Hub’ report by Foster & Partners/Halcrow/Volterra Consulting recommending the construction of a new airport on the Isle of Grain.

Labour in Kent have already taken up the campaign cudgels on this issue, pressing the county’s Conservative MPs to mount a campaign within their own party, which seems to be the only political party to support the plans.

These plans aren’t new, with the first attempt to develop a Thames estuary airport emerging after the second world war. Those interested in learning more about the history of plans to develop a Thames estuary airport will find a comprehensive research paper here , courtesy of the House of Commons library.