A study published by influential think armored combat vehicle ‘Policy Exchange ‘ in 2012, argued that selling off expensive societal lodging as it becomes vacant could make the largest societal house edifice programme since the 1970s. Critically measure this policy recommendation – utilizing grounds to back up whether you think it is a believable solution or non – for work outing Britain ‘s lodging crisis. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/ending % 20expensive % 20social % 20tenancies.pdf

Britain ‘s Housing Crisis “ has overwhelmed a sequence of disposals from across the political spectrum ” 1. Each new authorities ‘s lodging policy has failed to cover with it.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The current lodging state of affairs is in a critical province. As a consequence of rent increasing to over 35 % of disposable income in the Private rented Sector, per centum of families defaulting on their mortgage refunds increasing ( over 14 % ) along with a 54 % lessening of seasonal completions in new physiques compared to the December 2005 peak the handiness of low-cost lodging in diminishing. The impact of this on societal lodging waiting list, which presently stands at 1.8 million, will certainly be an addition.

Existing authorities policies are committed to undertaking the high degree waiting list as they have promised to present 170,000 new low-cost places by 2015. This figure is non plenty and they must develop new strategies to present more low-cost lodging. This may be hard due to the Housing Budget being cut by 47 % to ?4.5 billion intending a deficit in financess for new build strategies. This will ensue in the quota to rehouse all those on waiting lists will non be fulfilled.

The think armored combat vehicle ‘Policy Exchange ‘ published a study which argued that councils and lodging associations needed to make more new, low-cost lodging to work out the lodging crisis. To be able to fund the edifice of new lodging so expensive societal belongingss should be sold off. The study, ‘Ending Expensive Social Tenancies ‘ by Alex Morton ( 2012 ) , explains that as expensive societal belongingss become vacant, through the decease of the renter and renters go forthing, alternatively of allowing the belongings the societal landlord should sell the stock and reinvest the grosss in edifice multiple good quality places therefore work outing the crisis.

This is the chief statement of the study and to back up their claim the study makes the point that:

The public already oppose expensive societal lodging

By selling off the expensive belongingss ?159 billion in grosss will be generated

Fundss from gross revenues can construct 80,000 – 170,000 new, low-cost places

The policy would hold a positive consequence on the wider economic system

Since the release of the study there has been widespread response to it. Some have come out in support of implementing it as policy while others have massively criticised it. In this essay I will measure the statements set out by the Morton ‘s study and buttocks if it could be the reply to the lodging crisis or would the execution of it merely do the crisis more terrible.

First, the study argues that the bulk of the populace are opposed to expensive societal lodging being offered to those on the waiting list. To look into the populaces ‘ positions on expensive societal lodging and whether it should be offered to those in demand of lodging Policy Exchange commissioned Yougov to set about polling. One inquiry in the canvass stated, ‘people should non be offered council houses worth more than the mean house in their local authorization. ‘ The consequences of the canvass were that 73 % of those involved were in favor of the statement while merely 13 % opposed giving a net understanding of + 58 % . Another inquiry from the canvass, ‘People should non be offered council lodging in expensive countries ‘ gave consequences at a 4:1 ration of those who strongly agree with the statement to those who strongly disagree.

Alex Morton himself supports this position when he explains to Inside Housing ( 2012 ) that societal lodging renters do merit a place of their ain but non places that cost more and are more advanced than ordinary working people can afford and this is why most people do non hold with expensive societal lodging. The manager of Policy Exchange, Neil O’Brien besides supports the position of the populace. He told the BBC News ( 2012 ) that people do non hold the right to be housed in the most expensive countries but Paul Sellers disagrees that the bulk of the public oppose expensive societal lodging there are those who disagree with the polls. He writes in his Touch Stone Blog ( 2012 ) that the manner the inquiries have been outlined in the canvass has manipulated the manner people answer the inquiries go forthing the consequences flawed. They can non be a true contemplation of people ‘s sentiments and therefore can non turn out that the bulk of people oppose expensive societal belongingss.

Although Sellers believes the polling is flawed he has no grounds to demo what the position of the populace is in respects to expensive societal lodging. Consequently if we study Yougov ‘s canvass we can reason that the bulk of the populace would back up the study if it were to go policy as those expensive belongingss would non be available to those seeking societal lodging and they would besides non be housed in expensive countries as belongingss at that place would non be available due to them being sold. This shows the study would be successful every bit policy as it would hold the populace ‘s support and could work out the lodging crisis.

Second, he report suggests selling the most expensive societal belongingss in order to bring forth financess for new physiques would make the largest societal house edifice programme since the 1970s and travel a long manner in work outing the lodging crisis. For societal landlords to sell off these expensive belongingss it has to be distinguished which belongingss are expensive and which are non. Morton suggests expensive should be defined as above the mean value of lodging in an country and to work out the mean value of lodging a average value should be used. This is where all the single houses are priced in order from the lowest to highest and the mid-point is chosen. This means that half the belongingss are more expensive while half are less expensive.

The study tells us that around 20 % of all societal lodging is expensive. If societal landlords were to sell off these belongingss so the bulk would be sold in London and the South as belongingss are more expensive in those countries. This would be unjust hence to guarantee that expensive societal lodging is sold every bit throughout Britain and non merely in one country the study suggests utilizing a Regional Median value where Housing above the average value in a part, e.g. the north E or south West, will be expensive and so sold off. This will vouch equity for the ground that each part will hold societal lodging above and below the average significance all parts will necessitate to sell a figure of expensive belongingss

Critics of the study all have a similar position. Through selling expensive societal belongingss in a part it would make unintegrated communities. This is due to the fact that belongingss above the regional median are largely in expensive countries. By selling them societal lodging would non be available in more good off countries ensuing in less off people non being able to populate at that place.

Labour MP Karen Buck ( BBC News 2012 ) argues that if the most expensive societal belongingss in countries are sold so those on lower incomes would non be able to populate in comfortable countries hence making segregated ghettos of richness and poorness.

Similarly Jack Dromey disagrees with the impression of selling off the expensive belongingss in a part. He told the BBC News ( 2012 ) that by implementing the study as policy so households with low incomes would be propelled out of whole vicinities and besides assorted communities would be destroyed as the richest and poorest of society would be segregated and would non blend.

Peter Sellers ( 2012 ) explains the societal categories would go more divided through this policy. Those who work in service business would hold to go further to acquire to work. Car congestion and fuel ingestion would increase. Those who have to go by public conveyance will hold to pay more as they have further to go. This in consequence will do those on low paid occupation even poorer while those who have the high paid occupations will non be consequence. Mike Jones, chair of the Local Government Association ‘s environment and lodging board, adds to this by stating there is a hazard that workers could be forced out of countries taking to the human ecology of countries going detrimental to the plangency of the local economic system.

From these positions we can infer that if those belongingss above the median were sold so merely those with high incomes could populate in the Centre of metropoliss and towns as that is where the most expensive belongingss are situated. Meanwhile those with lower income will hold to populate on the outskirts of metropoliss and towns due to societal places being unavailable in the expensive countries and non being able to afford belongingss in expensive countries. The policy would do the lodging crisis worse as it will segregate communities into rich and hapless countries across all parts in Britain and as a consequent would make a deeply divided society.

Leading on, the study suggests that by selling expensive belongingss ?159 Billion could be raised from grosss. As the most expensive stock can non be sold off all at one time because they are presently occupied, stock that is vacant can merely be sold. Vacant belongingss in Britain has had a turnover of around 7 % in recent old ages and with renters less likely to go forth belongingss in desirable countries the turnover of most expensive belongingss can be expected to be less than the national norm. Morton assumes an one-year turnover of around 3.5 % which is around 28,500 belongingss and if they are sold ?5.5billion can be raised. After councils and Housing Associations refund their one-year debts ?4.5 billion is left over to construct more stock. Along with this the study explains that through councils and lodging associations being able to borrow against their hereafter rents an excess ?1.5 billion will be added intending a sum of ?6 billion being available for new lodging stock. Through this a jutting 80,000 houses could be built each twelvemonth adding to the figure presently being built ensuing in about 170,000 new places each twelvemonth. With this projection it would take 4 -5 old ages to house the full waiting list as it stands in good quality places demoing that the policy would in fact be the reply to the current lodging crisis.

The former Housing Minister, Grant Shapps wholly supports this thought as he stated “ It ‘s blindingly obvious ” 2. He told The Telegraph ( 2012 ) that the most vulnerable people in society would be housed through edifice more houses and that ‘s why it makes sense to sell off the most expensive houses therefore liberating up stock to construct more nevertheless there are critics of this.

Peter Sellers ( 2012 ) tells us that a big sum of the financess generated would non travel constructing new stock. Merely around one societal place would be built with every four sold. This is down to a per centum of the gross revenues gross of sold societal lodging traveling back to the authorities and besides a per centum would travel to local governments general activities as set down by authorities policy. This sheds visible radiation on the fact that non all financess would be used to construct new places demoing us that the jutting 80,000 to 170,000 new places being built is wrong. Waiting lists would in fact remain high so it confirms this policy is non traveling to reply the turning lodging crisis.

In decision, the studies thought to sell expensive societal belongingss is a reasonable 1. It would bring forth fund to construct a larger figure of good quality societal places along with making occupations, assisting the fighting building industry and holding a positive impact on the wider economic system. This would hold the support of the bulk of the public but as we see from critics of the study that it could take to segregation and as David Orr of the National Housing Federation puts “ It could efficaciously cleanse many towns of difficult working people who merely ca n’t afford the high pricesaˆ¦ ” 3 This would non be good for society as it would make segregation and as a state Britain is seeking to convey people from all backgrounds and classes together so it would be a measure backwards. Along with this the jutting figure of stock being built would unrealistic as the authorities takes a per centum of the financess generated from gross revenues along with general operations of societal Landlords significance less financess for new physiques.

I am presently undecided if the policy would work out the current lodging crisis. Through societal landlords being able to maintain all the grosss from gross revenues and replacing the belongingss in expensive countries with god quality but cheaper societal lodging so segregation between the categories would be avoided and a maximal figure of houses could be built. I would back up this type of policy which could ensue in the waiting list reduction and travel a long manner in work outing the lodging crisis.