Wanted: housing weirdos

Happy New Year to you all – although it has to be said that the new decade has kicked off with anything but happiness: instead there is a sense of Apocalypse, with Australia on fire and Iran threatening retribution in the West for the assassination of General Soleimani.

But in housing we have more prosaic matters to attend to, not least dealing with a new Conservative government with a large majority. How should the sector respond to the new political situation? Grudging co-operation; enthusiastic collaboration; opposition? I have written before about Boris Johnson’s views on housing, and it is obviously disappointing that the Tory manifesto said little about social housing compared to the other parties. For some, the future looks gloomy, but there are chinks of light, as I wrote here.

One of the more interesting developments over the Christmas break was a “job advert” published by Dominic Cummings calling for people to apply to work in government.

I have to say I find Cummings a fascinating character. Depending upon your point of view, he is either a genius (perhaps an evil genius) or a charlatan, but the fact that he has twice outwitted and outmanoeuvred his opponents, first as Director of the Vote Leave Campaign, and then as éminence grise directing the 2019 election, suggests the former moniker is more apt. If only we had living writers of the calibre of Dickens, Thackeray or Evelyn Waugh – what a glorious satiric banquet they would create out of this scruffy, weird individual sitting at the heart of Downing Street. If you want a flavour of his spiky, belligerent character take a look at his appearances before the Treasury select committee, or his encounter with Lewis Goodall of Sky News (Goodall is now policy editor of BBC’s Newsnight).

There are some in our sector who would describe Cumming as a “disruptor”. Others would be less charitable.

Anyway, back to his rambling blog post in which he calls for a range of experts to apply for posts in government, including data scientists, software developers, unconventional economists, policy experts and “Weirdos and misfits with odd skills”. Cummings has a low opinion of most MPs and civil servants, and he is clearly trying to overturn and subvert the Whitehall machine. The mandarins have already hit back by claiming that he is not able to recruit directly. But I am sure he will find a way to by-pass them.

I suggested on Twitter that people in our sector should consider applying for these jobs but my SHOUT colleague Tom Murtha demurred, “Why would you want to work with the most corrupt government in my lifetime?” he asked.

Tom has solid principles, but I think this is rather short- sighted. If you look at the historical record, the Conservatives have governed for around two thirds of the post-war period. Labour has only been in power for barely 27 of the past 75 years. It is no good waiting forever for a Labour government to appear. And which year saw the greatest output of social housing in England? It was 1953 when 198,200 council homes out of a total output of 263,680 were built. Harold Macmillan, an old-school Tory, was housing minister. This was far in excess of Labour’s annus mirabilis of 1967 when 154,500 council homes were built (albeit out of a total output of 342,740). So the political picture is less clear cut than many would imagine. For the housing sector, opposition is self-defeating; you have to work with whoever is in power and I think that many more Tories now accept that tackling the housing crisis is a very high priority for this government.

Yes, it is true that the Conservatives have a poor recent track record on social housing. But Boris Johnson has accepted that Tory votes in the so-called Labour Wall and other deprived areas have been gained on a short-term lease. One of the very best ways to bring real jobs and prosperity to those areas is to invest in infrastructure and housing, especially social housing. That is the message we need to be promoting with the utmost vigour. That means every housing provider reaching out to their local Conservative MPs with tenfold the effort they have employed in the past, to make the case for investment. If it does not happen, then the voters will eventually return to Labour, inevitably.

But having a voice at the heart of government is also critical. We need people making the case for social housing in Number Ten. So if you are a housing policy expert and perhaps a weirdo to boot (I can think of a few) then make your application now!

This blog was first published by the Housing Quality Network on 9th January 2020.




Always look on the bright side…

After this week leaders’ debate I am going to stick my neck out and predict that the Conservatives will win a working majority at this election, perhaps by as many as 30 seats. A month from now, when Jeremy Corbyn is in Number 10, feel free to call me an idiot. At this stage of the last election the Conservatives had a stronger lead in the polls, but I don’t think Boris Johnson will make the same mistakes as Theresa May.

I know that a Johnson government will be a huge disappointment to most people in our sector, but I’ve always taken the view that we need to reach out across the political spectrum to make the case for social housing. When we founded the SHOUT campaign in 2014, we made sure that the launch included Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Green politicians. I also wrote an article for the Conservative Home website making the case for social rented homes.

If there is another Conservative government by Christmas, we’ll need to carry on arguing for social housing.

I wrote a recent blog about Boris Johnson’s views on housing. They are not encouraging. But the floor-crossing shenanigans of the last year have shown that political parties are not monoliths: they contain a range of views, and within the Conservative Party and on the right there are many voices calling for urgent attention to our housing crisis, which means that there’s some potentially fertile ground upon which to scatter our seeds of housing wisdom. Persuading the new government that social housing is a big part of the answer will be a struggle but “say not the struggle nought availeth”.

As an example, here are a few selected words from a senior Conservative politician:

“I want to see housing associations taking on and leading major developments themselves…your social mission can ensure developments are rooted in a conception of the public good, rather than in a simple profit motive…creating genuinely mixed communities with the right infrastructure and truly affordable housing…you also have a much broader role to play…changing the way tenants and society as a whole think about social housing…for many people, a certain stigma still clings to social housing…some residents feel marginalised and overlooked, and are ashamed to share the fact that their home belongs to a housingassociation or local authority…I want to see social housing that is so good people are proud to call it their home.”

That could have been in a speech by Jeremy Corbyn, but it was of course Theresa May, speaking to the NHF in September last year. If you search for housing-related articles on the Conservative Home website you will find a range of views on housing, some very positive. For example, here is Bob Seely erstwhile MP for the Isle of Wight, calling for between 250,000 and 340,000 net additions a year; for upwards of £9bn of funds to go to registered providers to buy up and convert bungalows and provide a new generation of key worker and starter homes; for an end to the automatic right to buy; and for government to pass government land to councils more swiftly.


Next is our ally Lord Gary Porter bemoaning the rampant nimbysim among traditional Tory voters, and arguing the case for better funding of infrastructure and new homes to attract younger middle-aged voters.

Or here is Will Tanner, a former advisor to Theresa May, describing how careful resident consultation can overcome nimby opposition, citing a scheme in Newquay where the community was persuaded to support a four-times larger mixed use development on the edge of town that will increase the size of the town by 20%. A development that “will serve Newquay’s housing needs for not just five but the next fifty years”. By engaging sensibly with local people and meeting their needs, and not just the short-term interests of developers and landowners, nimbys were turned into yimbys, he writes.

Of course, there are also voices at the other end of the spectrum, like our old friend Harry Phibbs asking why we have targets for housebuilding, since we don’t set target for the the number of dishwashers or pairs of trousers we need each year.

Some commentators from the right-leaning press are also making a very strong case for radical reforms to build more homes, arguing that the Tories will lose unless they address the housing crisis. Foremost is Liam Halligan (“Tackle Britain’s housing crisis or risk socialist rule”). He has been economic correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph since 2003 (he shared a flat with Dominic Cummings in Moscow in the mid-nineties) and his new book, Home Truths, sets out a radical reform agenda. He calls for supply-side stimuli rather than the £billions that have been wasted on Help to Buy. He rails against the oligopoly that is the housebuilding industry and urges stiff fines for developers who fail to build out their sites. He supports selective building on the Green Belt (yes!), and, above all, the repeal of the 1961 Land Compensation Act so that landowners can be fairly taxed for any uplift in land values.

To take a typical example from recent government figures, a hectare of agricultural land around Reading might sell for £22,000, but the same land with residential planning permission could fetch £5m. Halligan suggests a 50/50 split in the uplift for the landowner and the state. This revenue, he says, could be ring-fenced to fund the new schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that would make housebuilding more popular with local communities, and allow local authorities to build millions of social homes. This is a call that is being supported by, among others, Sajid Javid (it would ease land speculation, he says) and Tony Pidgeley, founder of Berkeley Homes.

All this is hardly traditional Tory fare – in fact, it wouldn’t look out of place in a Labour manifesto. It seems that the scale and range of the housing crisis is finally hitting home.

So, look on the bright side, there are chinks of light on the horizon. To quote another song, “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in”.

Stay or go?

Last week I wrote about the Grenfell Inquiry. One of the points raised in Sir Martin Moore Bick’s Phase 1 report was the failure to reverse the “stay put” advice once it was clear that the block was beyond saving. Ever since the 1960s it has been an article of faith that compartmentalisation in tower blocks does not require mass evacuation, and that moving hundreds of people out of a block could be more dangerous than them staying put. Not only is there a danger that stairways will be dark, smoke-filled and fire-ravaged, leading to a degree of confusion and panic, but one has to bear in mind disasters where people died as a result of being crushed in a confined space, such as Bethnal Green tube (1943:173 deaths), Ibrox (1971: 66 deaths), and Hillsborough (1989: 96 deaths).

One of the inquiry’s recommendations is that the government should put in place national guidelines requiring the owners and managers of high-rise residential blocks to draw up plans for the partial or total evacuation of their buildings. These should include measures to protect exit routes and to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for vulnerable residents, such as the elderly, people with disabilities, and families with young children, for whom evacuation might be more difficult. Their details should be provided in a property information box, stored on the premises, and copies of these plans should be lodged with local fire and rescue services and also displayed within the premises. The inquiry also recommends that the fire and rescue service should be able to send a signal to all or some residents to instruct them to evacuate using “sounders or similar devices”. Continue reading

Safety First: The Grenfell Inquiry

Ali Yawar Jafari was born in Afghanistan in 1936. He was a keen traveller, and fond of animals and gardening. Once, he saw a pigeon whose legs were tied in string and he waited for days to catch it so that he could free it. He told his family that he was pleased the pigeon was now free to go wherever it wanted. Ali Yawar lived in flat 86 at Grenfell Tower and was 81 when he died in the fire on 14 June 2017.

This is just one tiny human story in the 174 pages of testimonies in Chapter 32 (“Remembering those who died”) of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s official Grenfell Tower Inquiry. I challenge you to read these pages without crying. They reveal the human side of this catastrophe, of the talented, diverse, hardworking people living in that block. A community of Londoners that was let down by the state and its agents.

Just to recap the key events of that night. A fridge fire in flat 16 on the fourth floor was reported at 12.54am in a 999 call. Two fire engines arrived at 12.59am and two more shortly after. By 1.20am they had extinguished “an ordinary kitchen fire”, in the report’s words, but by this stage the fire had spread into the external cladding. Within 20 minutes it had reached the roof and then spread around the whole block, moving upwards and downwards. By 1.50am 168 residents had evacuated the building. By 2.47am the normal “stay put” policy was abandoned and a further 36 residents escaped. The last resident was evacuated at 8.07 am.

72 people died.

The firefighters who attended “displayed extraordinary courage and selfless devotion to duty” but the London Fire Brigade comes in for some criticism in the report for control and communication failures, its lack of up to date information about the tower and for its failure to call for earlier evacuation between 1.30 and 1.50 am.

But hindsight is wonderful. No firefighter could have been prepared for what was encountered that night, the speedy spread of the fire and the catastrophic failure of a fundamental principle of firefighting – compartmentalisation.

Part Two of the Inquiry will look at the wider construction and safety issues, but the Inquiry has already reached some fairly firm conclusions about the rapid spread of the fire. When the block was refurbished in 2016 foam insulation panels were affixed to the concrete façade and these were protected by aluminium composite (ACM)  rainscreen panels which had a polyethylene core. There were cavities between the original concrete façade, the insulation panels and the ACM panels, to allow ventilation and drainage.

Continue reading