Tonight: Challenges for London / Where next for housing

[Tim Lund]

Both speakers are decent Labour Party, so should be worth hearing, but since I only just saw it, l'm not sure that I'll be able to go.

[Tim Lund]

Well, I did go, and I'm glad I did, so I'm going to offer some thoughts on it here.

First, I'd suggest that anyone with a serious interest in local democracy should take the opportunity to go to such open meetings of the Sydenham Labour Party. I'm not a member, or likely to be, but in the context of the London Mayoral election and housing policy, I'm a qualified supporter. There were three people there with whom I've had seriously strained relations in the past, but am now back on speaking terms. I got one chance to ask a question, and if I chosen one to be antagonistic, I'm sure the atmosphere would have become a bit hostile, but I was there to learn - from a group of people with whom I share many ideals, and who have vastly more experience than I do about the details of the housing crisis and how to win elections. May be most important, they are able to be self critical about how they are doing.

It's how, I think, a political party should be, transmitting realistic understanding about getting things done to its members, although this group, being self-critical, were aware of their weakness in involving younger people. OTOH, it could also be a weakness of younger people, who really want to achieve change, that they do not attend meetings such as this in the spirit of learning I'd recommend. There's a generational gap to be bridged - something I have some views on, but this meeting was not the place for me to provoke an argument about the economics of housing, in which I would probably be in a minority of one.

It would take too long, and even though this was an open meeting, probably be inappropriate to go into details of the discussion, but there was one question I felt particularly penetrating. Observing that while the housing crisis appeared to becoming more and more salient, the questioner wondered whether the Labour Party had a message for its campaigning which would distinguish it from other parties, who profess equal concern. As long as they do not, then housing isn't going to be the deciding factor in the London Mayoral election, so making it, again, depend too much on personalities.

[leenewham]

So what are Labour's ideas for solving the housing problem?

[Tim Lund]

Let's leave that for some local Labour Party members to elaborate.

I'm not interested here in another discussion which will get consigned to the pub.

[leenewham]

It's relevant, surely? What was the point of saying you went after telling people to go if you don't' report on what happened or what was said, presuming of course that they actually discussed what the meeting was supposed to be about (judging by the advertising).

From your report it sounds as if the meeting was a complete waste of time and that they couldn't even answer a question as simple as 'what makes you different from other parties on housing'.

[Eagle]

Tim
I appreciate you are very interested in new housing , but not sure what these posts tell us about that.

I do feel happy you had an amicable meeting with some people you have not seen eye to eye with before , but what about the subject.

-- Off topic content removed by Admin --

[Tim Lund]

From your report it sounds as if the meeting was a complete waste of time and that they couldn't even answer a question as simple as 'what makes you different from other parties on housing'.

I'm not going to be drawn. Listening to and learning from other people is not a complete waste of time, even if you don't get answers to the questions you start off burning to have answered conclusively.

[Tim Lund]

In response to Lee's question, I can now offer this link to the 'HOMES FOR LONDONERS' section of Sadiq Khan's manifesto.

Here's what from it wins my vote:

That’s why, if I am elected Mayor, my single biggest priority will be to build thousands more homes every year, for you, your family and your friends – and to give first dibs to Londoners on new homes. Our capital needs more than 50,000 new homes a year – yet the current Mayor has built barely half that number.

Unfortunately, when an earlier discussion got into the question of how many new homes actually were needed, it was judged by Admin to be going off the rails, nicely illustrating the difficulty of our democracy dealing with what at least we all now pay lip-service to as the most important issue for Londoners. In the words of Sadiq Khan's manifesto

The housing crisis is the single biggest barrier to prosperity, growth and fairness facing Londoners today

[leenewham]

Some decent thoughts there, buts lots of detail missing, which is a shame and lots of other areas that affect house prices not addressed. Plus no mention of infrastructure improvements, more doctors, schools etc to service the new homes.

Nothing about making current homes easier to buy and sell and taming the market so that it's not designed to push up prices. Nothing about the design of the homes, does he mean more flats or houses?

I wish he had a vision.

I wish Tom Chance had won the Green Party nomination for Mayoral Candidate, I think he's got some good ideas and more of a vision. I don't really know who I will vote for. No-one really has enlightened me, there is no 'Bernie Sanders' moment in this election so far. as for housing, all the solutions seem a bit safe.

I have a vote, and no-one really seems interested in it.

[Tim Lund]

At the risk of incurring Admin's dismissal to the Town Pub, as before, when actual numbers are quoted, here's what I wrote previously on estimates of numbers of new houses needed in London

• Boris Johnson’s ‘epic challenge’ of 42,000 per year,
• the 50,000 Tom Chance thinks can be managed,
• between 50,000 and 70,000 as estimated by a House of Commons Briefing paper, or
• 72,000-100,000 as estimated by London 100k Homes, also commenting on Tom’s blog.

I find the latter the most credible

So Lee might wish Tom Chance was standing for London Mayor, but at just 8,000 a year, his aspirations aren't that much of an advance on Boris's. I'm sure he has a nice vision though.

The truth is that all political parties know being seen as the party which will allow the largest increase in housing is electorally toxic, and while the Labour Party is the most intellectually courageous here, so gets my vote, it's naturally reluctant to major on it. Safer to stick to the minutiae of what signals get out which sections of the vote.

For more, I refer again to

Housing policy as if we really believed in it

[Nigel]

Tim
Lets not kid ourselves that build more houses is a " policy " any more than " we're running out of energy , build more power stations " .

Massive building is toxic for a reason - people don't like the loss of green space , wildlife habitat , and empty placed and skyline ( when is an environmentalist am ugly fat white Tory racist guy ? When he opposes house building ) .

Who are " Londoner's " I thought I was one but Im sure a dodgy lawyer turned politician will know better . I hope I can be at least an associate member eg allowed in but needs a member to accompany me if I want to go to the bar .

Any " policy " that fails to look at the issue of demand before addressing supply is a joke . Unemployment is thankfully at a record low in the south east but we still house thousands of Europeans we don't need .

If you were addressing your home energy you would look at wastage , poor usage , avoiding energy - hungry processes . Politicians are basically saying buy a bigger boiler and you are fawning over them as though they had come up with some we didn't know .

I know you support the hood winking of the public into weaning themselves off of grass , trees as daylight but don't forget politicians would get equally behind " fewer houses now " . Goldsmith at least lays out some environmental vision - khan is your standard what's hot/ what's not politician who at the moment , is spouting the same views as you on housing .

A very good evening
Nigel

[Tim Lund]

Any " policy " that fails to look at the issue of demand before addressing supply is a joke . Unemployment is thankfully at a record low in the south east but we still house thousands of Europeans we don't need .

If you were addressing your home energy you would look at wastage , poor usage , avoiding energy - hungry processes . Politicians are basically saying buy a bigger boiler and you are fawning over them as though they had come up with some we didn't know .

There's an interesting parallel here with the the current thread in the Pub about the need to build more power stations, where _HB is struggling to get his head round the possibility that demand for peak generating capacity can be managed, and instead will only think about supply.

I'd have thought that in general both are worth looking at, although often one will be more manageable than the other. In the case of housing, supply is much the easier to manage, but for the attitudes of NIMBYs. I don't have a problem with newcomers - on balance I welcome them, although I do have a problem with people who've grown up in London being priced out by them - which is best dealt with by allowing more homes to be built. I want them well planned, which includes having a policy for whether the new homes should be on existing green space, or higher build on currently developed land - where I prefer the latter.

I think these are obviously reasonable positions, and suspect the Labour Party in London is closest to them.

[leenewham]

Tim, Boris promised 42,000 homes.
How many did he deliver?

16,800 in the year following his promise.
25k last year.

Mr Khan may say he will build more, but in reality it's a figure pulled out of thin air. Picking a politician over another because they promise more than another one is, frankly, utter fantasy.

I'm sure Mr Khan has good intentions, and there are some good intentions, but remember that Cameron said he would be the greenest government ever.

And then did the opposite.

Having vision, being realistic and carrying out what you say rather than just saying stuff to get votes is where my vote will go.

I'm just waiting for someone to offer this and be running in an election I can vote in.

[Tim Lund]

Tim, Boris promised 42,000 homes.
How many did he deliver?

16,800 in the year following his promise.
25k last year.

Mr Khan may say he will build more, but in reality it's a figure pulled out of thin air. Picking a politician over another because they promise more than another one is, frankly, utter fantasy.

I'm sure Mr Khan has good intentions, and there are some good intentions, but remember that Cameron said he would be the greenest government ever.

And then did the opposite.

Having vision, being realistic and carrying out what you say rather than just saying stuff to get votes is where my vote will go.

I'm just waiting for someone to offer this and be running in an election I can vote in.

Lee - It's no bad thing to be sceptical about any politician's promises, but a serious Mayoral candidate - e.g. Sadiq Khan - positions himself as promising to build more houses than the others, I think it is a significant straw in the wind. After the meeting I asked Len Duvall something about this target - and he flannelled somewhat. This might have been because he remembered me as formerly chair of SydSoc, so thought I'd not want to hear commitments to higher housebuilding, but more likely just that he is a careful politician who looks always at what focus groups and polling research is telling. Some of the most interesting parts of the meeting were his comments on these sorts of details. I suspect such professional politicians sometimes miss longer term changes, and the increasing acceptance of the need for more housing in London, so weakening of Nimbyism, is an example of this. But a party who wants to get elected still need people like Len Duvall.

I'm with you, in a way, about the lack of vision for London, but I guess I'm a bit more understanding of the need for caution among those who seek election. It's fine for me to keep pushing the argument for more housing, which I actually do in the hope that, as an outrider, holding what seems an extreme position, I help move the consensus.