Help the Liberal Democrats' core voters to buy homes

 In March 2014 the Economist published an article that spelt out the growing generation gap in terms of home ownership.

 Young homeowners were described as fast becoming a disappearing species. The percentage of those aged between 16-24 living in houses or flats they own themselves had dropped from 36% in 1991 to just 10% in 2012. Those only slightly older were also having difficulties getting on the property ladder. Home ownership had dropped among the 25-34 age group from 67% to 39.5% in the same period.

And since 2010, the number of middle-aged homeowners has started to flat-line too. Only home ownership amongst pensioners appears to be still on an upward trajectory.

Why should this matter to Liberal Democrats? Well as Liberator has argued many times through its contributors, the party needs to build a core vote by identifying those people most likely to be attracted to our basic beliefs. Various commentators have told us in recent weeks that those most likely to be sympathetic to our aims are younger people, those with a university education, and those who work as professionals, especially in the public sector. They are attracted to our commitment to human rights, our internationalism, and are worried about climate change. They also support good public services.

What the Liberal Democrats have never been good at is to put forward a policy programme which provides positive benefits in material terms to our likely core voters. Labour and the Tories have no such qualms about manipulating the market place to benefit their core voters. It is time we were more blatant about it.

Many of our potential core voters are likely to be trapped as private renters unable to save up for the deposit for a first purchase. The significant drop in homeowners in the under-40 age group is due to spiraling house prices that are set at too many multiples of potential buyers’ gross incomes.

But there is an emerging trend that many people are paying rents that are higher than the equivalent mortgage payments would be on the properties they occupy. They are in the dilemma of paying a high rent but cannot afford to save for a 10% deposit on an equivalent property.

Which brings me to my proposal. If the Tories can extend the right to buy to Housing Association tenants (but at a discount and with no guarantee of replacement homes being funded) then we should consider extending the right to buy to those renting in the private sector, under certain conditions.

Those paying rent but who can obtain a 100% mortgage offer on the property they occupy from a recognised bank or building society, where the mortgage payments would be the same or less than the rent they are paying, should gain a legal right to buy the property. In these circumstances the test of affordability would be met and should satisfy the mortgage providers.

Any valuation of the property could be established by the average of values estimated by the mortgage provider, an estate agent nominated by the buyer, and another nominated by the landlord. The property would be sold at an agreed market price, so the landlord would not lose out, unlike the Housing Associations, who will do under the Tories’ proposed scheme.

The effect of enshrining this in law would be to moderate both house prices and rents. Landlords would become wary of putting up rents above the equivalent mortgage cost in case they lost their properties. With more genuine applications for mortgage funds, and a consequential increase in the number of properties becoming available to purchase, the current situation of too many buyers chasing very few properties would be relieved and this would also help to moderate property prices.

A number of buy-to-let landlords would decide to move out of the business because their returns would diminish. This would help to correct the generation gap that has emerged in recent years which saw older people investing in property as an alternative pension option.

Not everyone currently renting and being able to afford the mortgage payment would want to claim the right to buy of course, because the property may not be an attractive longer-term proposition for them.

I am aware that my proposal makes no contribution to the need for more housing generally, but the Chancellor’s recent gifts to first time buyers to help them with deposits has cost the Treasury money, and helped to drive up prices even further, while my proposal requires no Government subsidy while having a moderating effect on house price inflation.

Thomas Picketty established in his book Capital that the current trend of concentrating capital assets in older age groups was increasing across the West. To ease the potential generational tension progressive parties need to regulate markets to offer new ways for younger generations to gain assets.

My proposal is one which would make a modest impact on this problem, and would be attractive to the very cohort of voters who are attracted to us for more altruistic reasons. So why not help them in their pockets too?

Potentially included in the next edition of Liberator magazine...

Will a good housing policy but a vote winner?

At a recent hustings meeting between Tim Farron and Norman Lamb I posed a question about their housing policies. Both wanted to build more homes and had ideas on how to achieve this aim. Allowing Housing Associations to borrow against the value of their existing stock to build more homes was the most attractive, and having a premium tax on expensive homes owned by non-resident owners was also a useful addition to the debate on how to finance more building.

However I queried whether the vast majority of voters actually regarded Housing as a priority issue which would convince people to vote for the Liberal Democrats. I suggested that most people in the country (certainly outside London) had somewhere to live with a rent or mortgage payment which was affordable. Housing for most is not actually an issue, while for those who are in a critical position understandably regard it as the number one priority.

The peculiar circumstances of London distort the national figure. Most commentators suggest that people should pay no more than 30% of their net income on housing costs. A BBC Panorama programme in 2013 found that 31% pay unaffordable rent or mortgage costs which were above the 30% level, while in March 2015 the Evening Standard reported that "Rent takes up more than half of pre-tax income in 13 of the capital’s 32 boroughs. Even in the two most affordable areas — Bexley and Bromley — renters spend almost a third of their income on their home. The figures are before tax is deducted, meaning Londoners are spending significantly more than half of their take-home pay on rent."

So while there is a case for housing to be an issue for politicians generally, the cost of housing is mostly critical in London and the south east, where demands outstrips supply.

There is also an important demographic to be taken into account when considering the relative priority of housing as an issue.

The Office for National Statistics reported in 2013 (based on 2011 Census data) the nature of tenure compared to the age of "Household Reference Persons" (formerly called heads of households). This crucially demonstrated that the majority of HRPs in the two younger age-groups - 16-24 and 25-34 - headed up rented households (87% and 60% respectively) while all older age groups showed a majority owning their own home.

That is the problem. For any party to get traction in electoral terms on housing issues has to convince the younger age groups, who are suffering the most from unaffordable housing, to actually vote. And that starts with getting them registered to vote in the first place. The younger you are the more likely you will move from one short term letting to another, and so registering to vote in an area which may only be home for a year or two is not a priority. 

Those in the post-35 age groups who are more likely to own a property, and having enjoyed the benefits of low mortgage rates for some time, may not be attracted to vote for a party which thinks housing is the big priority when other matters like education, health, or immigration are more important to them personally. 

So when I put my question to the leadership contenders, I asked them how they would inspire those who had no personal housing issue to vote for a party that made it a priority. Tim Farron did not accept the premise of the question, because he thought everyone would know someone who had a problem, while Norman agreed and set out, as did Tim,  a range of interesting ideas on how to improve housing supply. 

I know there are a lot of people who do not vote purely out of self interest. But I think the majority do. Under a fair voting system a combination of Tory and UKIP voters could create a majority in the House of Commons, and these people I would suggest are not motivated by altruism. 

For example, Labour sought to garner votes in the General Election on issues such as zero hours contracts. Only 1.5% of employees are engaged on zero hours contracts and half of this proportion are happy with them. While they are intrinsically bad for employment stability, Labour's campaign to attract votes to end them hardly helped their campaign, because the vast majority of voters were not personally affected. 

So while I support the kind of thinking our two leadership candidates displayed at the hustings recently, they need to consider where the true priorities are in the hearts of voters. They need to develop a narrative which chimes with where the majority are, and not where they think all good-thinking people ought to be. 

We have enough...

There is a lot of talk at the moment, particularly in the Labour Party, that politicians should recognise aspiration as an important value that stimulates the middle classes. Aspiration is a difficult word to define properly in social and economic terms. I say this because I sometimes think it's about time the so-called aspirational middle classes aspired to accept they have enough, and could possibly be happier with a little less. 

The presumption that everyone should have increasing amounts of "stuff" does not equate to increasing human happiness and usually works against any realistic campaign to prevent climate change. Be thankful people. Most of us have enough. The pursuit of happiness has more to do with friends, family and community and less to do with owning the latest gadget.

The only politician I can remember talking about human happiness during an economic debate was John Pardoe the Liberal Party's economic spokesman during the February 1974 General Election. He appeared alongside Labour and Tory representatives on a TV show, which if memory serves was called Weekend World, although it might have been a predecessor show on ITV.  He said that the purpose of economic policy was to increase human happiness, and this totally floored the other two politicians who did not know how to react. 

He also said, a little tongue in cheek, that about half of public spending was probably wasted; the problem was working out which half. 


There was also a policy debate in the Liberal Party Assembly during the 70's which actually discussed the possibility of aiming for a zero-growth economy, the move being led at that time by Eric Avebury. The motion was defeated, but I sometimes think that the crude pursuit of economic growth is less important than the redistribution of wealth, using the state to both rebalance the economy and to rebalance life opportunities for people through a well funded and well managed Education system. 


So let us redefine aspiration. Surely the pursuit of human happiness is the more important aspiration we should recognise, rather than the ambition for ever increasing personal wealth, measured only in cash terms? 

Sliding towards sixty...

I was doing another typical activity of the suburban semi-detached male this morning. I was clearing up the garden (with a lot of help from my wife I must add).

Gardening for me is more about hacking down redundant bushes and removing accumulated rubbish than actually planting things. Although having said that, I did take advantage of an online discount to receive two small palm trees last week and managed to plant them in the rain. They did not fall over in the windy days that followed either, which suggests I am not entirely clueless when it comes to this sort of thing.

We were so happy with what we had achieved this morning that I paid for a Chinese takeaway for lunch, and then snoozed through the second half of the Saturday lunchtime game on BTSport between Arsenal and Liverpool.

Isn't that what retired people do? If I eat a heavy lunch these days I am easily nodding off whether I am in a comfortable armchair or not. This is another sign of my bodily age I suppose, although friends and family continue to compliment me on my youthful looks. If they could feel my aches and pains they would put me closer to my real age, I can assure them.

I had a phone call from Liberal Democrat HQ yesterday asking me to go leafletting in Hornsey and Wood Green. I told the man calling that with arthritis in both knees my leafletting days were over and he sympathised. (This was not quite true because I completed a round in Harrow a couple of months back, because it was guaranteed to be on the flat, but even then my knees almost seized up.)

My afternoon reverie was interrupted by the rattle of some post through the door. Opening the envelope I was delighted to discover my Senior Railcard which had been dispatched within 24 hours of my online application. They must have processed it on Good Friday, so it is pleasing to note that not all public institutions close down on a Bank Holiday.

It was with some glee that I had applied for this and for my Over-60s Freedom Pass for London travel. I have been looking forward to receiving some benefits from getting older after having paid my taxes for 38 years and having made few claims on public services in that time.

I now understand why people in my new age group will put up a fight to stop these giveaways being withdrawn in the future. I have already become conscious that football clubs vary in their definition of senior citizens in their pricing of match tickets, which is why I am hopeful that Coventry City do not decide to change their determination that 60 is the trigger point, at least until after I have bought next year's season ticket.

All this age-related behaviour suggests I am conforming to a stereo-type that in my former years I wanted to avoid becoming. I was a non-conformist, an individual who did not follow the herd. So what is happening to me? Are the values of semi-detached suburbia creeping up on me already?

This is why I must repeat my mantra three times before sleeping every night. "I am not content. I am not content. I am not content..."

Three months later...

A second new DVD and CD rack has now arrived and should be constructed soon. Which means the last two boxes from the move are ready to be opened. So after 3 months, almost to the day, we will have finally completed our move from Kilburn to Harrow.

This afternoon we put in our registration documents for the local medical centre, which is just a ten minute walk away, bringing to an end any official connection with Kilburn and West Hampstead.

The house has been transformed. The internal re-wiring is complete, with some external wiring to the shed being finished off tomorrow. The loft repairs were carried out during the week following up the surveyor's instructions. We have had a new laminate floor put in downstairs, a made-to-measure bi-folding door between the lounge and the kitchen installed, and four book-cases and shelving units put up. A new garden fence was erected a week ago.

New bedroom and dining furniture arrived before the Christmas break. We have ordered new blinds and curtains, plus a stairway carpet which will all be fitted in March.

We have now exhausted our improvement budget, and we are now pretty exhausted ourselves at making sure all the works actually happened, mostly to time and within budget.

Time to pause and reflect on what we have achieved in three months.

But it is not only the physical changes to our home environment that have occurred. Our new daily and weekly routines, with me working from home again after a three year gap has made a big difference. I am now waking at 6.30am to walk to our splendid Victorian Hatch End swimming pool for a few lengths before getting home to make sure Nana is on her way to work at 7.35am. Breakfast, and a peruse of the online newspapers on my iPad is complete by 8.30am, and I can start work without the stress of the daily commute. Bliss!

We have been exploring the delights of Hatch End, which has about a dozen excellent restaurants with a wide range of cuisines. There are still a few to try but no duds yet. We now know where the buses go and how to fast connect from Harrow-on-the Hill or Harrow & Wealdstone stations to old haunts in zones 1 and 2. We actually got back from the Hampstead Theatre on Thursday evening, door-to-door, in precisely 45 minutes. So we are not on the edge of civilisation at all, but instead finding a new greener place to breathe and relax in.

To cap it all, a walk with my sister on Sunday led to us finding Pinner Park Farm, which is a working beef-rearing farm about 15 minutes from my front door. Yes, real cows less than a mile from my home!

Am I missing the old flat?  No, I have fond memories but the past is the past. This is my life now. My home is in Harrow, and I think I will be here for a long time. I am a member of the Harrow Liberal Democrats and completed my first leafleting round in a target ward last week. Everything was on the flat, no multi-occupied buildings. A leafleter's dream.

All I am waiting for is some warmer weather so I can tackle the gardening with more enthusiasm, and enjoy the option of taking in the sun in my own back yard.

What stimulated this piece was seeing some opinions on a Camden website bemoaning the cost of property in Camden. Yes I know it is ridiculously expensive, which is why I could not buy a house there.

Market forces still dominate the decisions we all take in our daily lives. We can choose how to spend or save our money in a million different ways. I cannot afford to buy a bottle of champagne every day. I cannot afford first class rail fares. I shop for bargains in Sainsburys and Morrisons and rarely try finding food in M&S or Waitrose. I decide what is affordable.

Why then do people bemoan the fact that there are certain areas where you cannot afford to live on an average salary? Make a home in an area which you can afford and seek out the benefits of living in a new neighbourhood. I did, and it has made me happier than I have been for a while.

And finally BT get it right...

After another day I finally get another BT customer service person on the phone who has now agreed to refund all the calls made internationally plus I get a £20 goodwill gesture credited to my account.

So it pays to complain and to press for the deadlock letter in these cases.

If you have a legitimate complaint, corporations of this type will want to avoid bad publicity and the likelihood of being reported to the arbitration service relevant to their industry. I had so much good evidence that I was likely to win through arbitration and corporations like BT don't like high numbers  of lost cases being published.

BT just get it wrong

Well happy new year to my occasional  readers.

I have promised to give BT some bad publicity because of a catalogue of errors they have made in selling me a package for my new home including a new landline, wi-fi and BT Sport.

When I set up the new line I was told by a sales assistant that a special package for international calls called International Freedom was available for less than £7 a month which would give me 300 minutes of call time per month to international destinations.

I questioned at the time whether this would include Ghana. The sales assistant confirmed yes. I said including mobiles, and he said yes. This was important as there is only a limited area of Accra (where the old colonial buildings are) which has landlines. Everyone else uses mobiles.

So a month later my first bill shows up with over £80 of calls to Ghana. I go on line to complain and after a recorded exchange with an assistant I bargain a refund of £40 plus the withdrawal of the original cost of the International Freedom package.

I end the exchange at this point and discover that if you have a complaint against BT (or any other telecom operator) you should write to ask for a "deadlock" letter. I did this.

In response to my letter I get a call from a friendly woman from BT who wants to talk about my complaint. It appears through this call that the first assistant who sold me the package is no longer employed by BT and, would you believe it, the call that I made was NOT recorded for training purposes.  How convenient. We also discover that although the transcript of my online complaint exchange indicates I was to get £40 taken off my bill, this was not done either.

I am annoyed. I ask for the entire cost of our calls to Ghana to be wiped. My wife has been using the services of Lycamobile for years which still offers better value than BT's standard International Friends and Family rates. We only changed on the promise of something cheaper still from BT.

I am told that they can only offer me £50 in reductions. I said I would accept this as an initial offer but still wanted the deadlock letter. This is when it gets really silly. I am told the offer of any compensation is withdrawn entirely if I persist in having a deadlock letter.

BT are not doing themselves any favours by treating their customers in this way. To withdraw an unconditional offer made in writing (I still have the transcript) beggars belief.

So we will proceed to the next stage of the complaints process.

To be continued...