Progressive policies explained: Housing

  Progressive European Party

After the coalition government, it was reported by Nick Clegg that the Conservatives refused to build more social housing because they worried it would create more Labour voters. That is an inhuman point of view, or though it does have some logic to it if you care more about who is in power than the welfare of the citizens they are supposed to be representing. 

The New Labour governments of Blair and Brown built fewer council houses than the Thatcher Government and this was in a boom time when we could easily have afforded to. What excuses did they have?

In today's Britain, there are families with children stuck in bed and breakfast hotels, sometimes for years, and until recently homeless people were sleeping in doorways. This only ended when they were moved to hotels by councils because of Covid19. As no permanent housing has been provided for them presumably when the pandemic has ended many of them will once again be rough sleeping. 

 

It is easy to do what I have just alluded to and blame the politicians. Or blame the politicians and the people who elected them. When the plane keeps crashing do you just keep blaming the pilot and the passengers or do you seek to manufacture a safer design of aircraft. After all, we are constantly being reminded that we can achieve anything because we are the world's fifth largest economy. But somehow we are unable to house the homeless. If this situation is not ringing the alarm bells and showing that our political system is broken and not fit for purpose it is hard to imagine what else could.  

There is also the not so small point that the government is at present spending £25 billion a year on housing benefits. To put this into context our net contribution to the European Union was only £8.6 billion a year. If we provided housing for everyone it would, in the end, save the £25 billion that housing subsidies currently cost and that money could, in turn, be used in a more productive way. The savings are even greater than what could be saved by ending housing benefits when you consider that the civil service machine administering housing benefit would also no longer be needed.     

    

The Progressive Party has a solution to the housing crisis, a solution that would house everyone in need from singles to large families in high quality social housing. And at the same time provide homes for all the first time buyers waiting to get on the housing ladder. This would be done without any cost to the taxpayer. 

How can we house everyone without it costing any money? 

I can give an example of where I live. Over the last few years, disused office blocks have been converted into flats and sold by the developers. This has provided much needed accommodation for a commuter area close to London but has not provided any housing for anyone on the council waiting list. And there is not a solar panel or wind turbine in sight. If instead of private companies doing these developments it had been done by the local council. And a proportion of the new flats, about 50%, were sold to repay the loans the remaining 50% would go to the homeless. At no cost, because the building costs would be met by the sale of half of the flats. 

Building regulations would also need to be updated to make provisions for all new builds and conversions to have a high level of insulation. With solar panels to generate electricity to provide heat and light. This would end fuel poverty and provide high quality housing for the private sector as well as alleviating the council waiting lists. 

Developers like to build three bedroom houses because that is where most profits lie. The trend in society is however towards more people living as singles. Because the social duty of councils is to house everyone on their waiting list and if half of them were singles then half of their new builds would also have to be small one bedroom flats and studios suitable for single person occupancy. The actual needs of society would be met without having to consider how to make a profit from it. 

In some of the less affluent areas it would not be possible to completely repay building loans from just the sale of a percentage of the new builds. However, a proportion of the cost of the loans would still be met and the local authority would be gaining an additional income from the rents. So there would still be no cost to the taxpayer. All monies from the right to buy scheme should also be added to the resources available for the developments. 

How would people who are unemployed or on low incomes pay their rent if there is no longer any housing benefits?

Because we would also replace the antiquated benefit system with a citizens income that is paid to all citizens and that would be sufficient to pay basic rent and living costs.  

With our scheme not only would the visible homeless be housed but we would no longer have to live in a society where an invisible homeless are sofa surfing or living with relatives. Everyone’s housing needs could be met regardless of their circumstances and, as I have said before, at no cost to the taxpayer. 

Philip Notley

ProgressiveEuropeanParty@gmail.com

Progressive policies explained: Direct Democracy

Progressive European Party

The lowering of standards and the reduction of workers rights, as well as the opening up of our economy to the outside world with a zero tariff, free for all, is exactly the purpose of Brexit. This could not be achieved while we were still European Union members. 

The people behind Brexit, who are now running our country, are free-market economy nuts. They had to get us out of the European Union in order to steer the country in the direction of their ideology. They don't want any rules or regulations (red tape) - not even the ones that protect our health, human rights, environment and jobs. Perversely, they want open borders for all products and services while at the same time keeping borders closed against the free movement of people. 

One of the things said back in 2017 by the then international trade secretary Liam Fox was that a free trade agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest deals in human history" - on the basis that our rules and laws are already the same. Yes fine, it could have been just that if we had stayed in the single market, retained a customs union and accepted the adjudication of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). However, our negotiators do not seem to have the first clue of what the European Union is. They want to deregulate the UK, leave the single market, have no customs union and no adjudication of the CJEU. Yet at the same time, they hope to preserve free trade with the EU: the most regulated trading block on the planet. Lunacy, lunacy driven by an ideology with no consideration of what is practicable or just plain common sense. This is the main problem with ideologies; their inflexibility. 

We, the good citizens of the United Kingdom, were only asked if we wanted to leave the EU or not. We were not asked if we wanted to be in a customs union, the single market, or to retain free movement. We have not been given any opportunity of further input beyond that single binary choice four years ago. This is democracy but only in its most diluted and perfunctory of forms. 

The situation we are in today is an extreme one, and quite unprecedented. Ideologies have, however, always had the effect of suppressing democracy: regardless of whether they were Socialism, Conservatism or Liberalism.

In the recent past, things were no better. We had no vote on whether we should be in the Schengen Area, should adopt the Euro or should be engaged in the Iraq war. These were all important decisions that affected the lives of most UK citizens and yet we were not permitted to have a say. 

The only thing we can do now is to lobby our local MP personally - usually to little effect.

The political ideology of a party that succeeds in gaining office usually becomes entrenched as a form of inflexible dogma. Imagine trying to convince Margaret Thatcher that an unrestricted free market economy had some inherent downsides and needed to have controls in place. Democracy will always take second place to dogma in the minds of the ruling political elite at any particular time. 

Pragmatism is our only ideology.

How then does the Progressive Party develop its manifesto policies if we are not following a Left, Right or Centre ideology? We have a test, we ask is it: Fair? Responsible? Economical? Efficient? This clearly has no foundation in any political ideology or philosophy and is unlikely to produce anything that could turn into an inflexible dogma. Instead for policies to pass the test and become part of our manifesto they, first of all, have to be desirable on a social level and then be workable in a practical sense. 

Our policy that would create the biggest constitutional change in this country is direct democracy. Currently, when voting for a candidate, their party logo is displayed next to their name on the ballot paper. This would no longer be necessary with a system of direct democracy. An elected MP would be a servant of the people, not the representative of the left, the right or the centre ground party. Only after enough time has been allowed for a particular policy to be published and openly discussed would we all get a vote on it. Modern technology makes it very easy to do this safely and with little risk of electoral fraud. 

Imagine a world where we, the citizens of the country, would be the ones to decide if there was to be a High Speed 2 train service. Equally if, after a start had been made, we could decide whether it should be continued in the light of unpredicted spiralling costs and delays to completion. Naturally, competent politicians and professional civil service would still be needed to do all the work. The difference is that we, the people, would be able to give them the instructions about what is to be done. 

Checks and balances are still needed to stop an extremist takeover of the country. A cooling-off period would be required before major changes could be made to how the country is run and a two-thirds supermajority required before constitutional changes were made. A mechanism would also be required to enable any member of the public to put forward proposals for debate. The current petition process of 100,000 votes before it is debated in parliament would be ideal for this. Unlike today, however, we would all be able to vote on the proposal at the appointed time.

These are just a few of our proposals. Much has been said in the past about an ideal government “of the people, for the people and by the people”. Hitherto this has remained merely a notional ideal. What we are proposing can turn it into a practical reality.

Philip Notley

(edited by John Coats)

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com