The housing crisis for first time buyers

    Progressive European Party

In response to a tweet by Tom Harwood

Tom Harwood

@tomhfh

The only people around my age I know who have been able to buy a house are those who have not had to pay rent. Stuck forking out a third to half your income on rent? You're stuffed. No other generation had to put up with this.

The Progressive Party has a solution for the housing crisis that would provide more properties for first time buyers and end the council waiting lists without costing taxpayers any money. I will cut and paste our housing policy below.

The problems come about because banks don’t lend money for mortgages from their cash reserves. They generate the money electronically. This creates a lot of free money and therefore artificially inflates house prices. 

Building developers are mostly interested in building three bedroom houses because that is where most of their profits lie. Whereas the trend in society is for more people living on their own. What is needed are more one bedroom and studio flats which would also help first time buyers get on the housing ladder. 

Local authorities have been restricted by the government in how much new housing they can build. And when people are paying rent their landlord most probably has a mortgage on the property themselves so they have to charge rent higher than the costs in order to make a profit. Add all these things together and you have the perfect storm for high rents and house prices. 

The Progressive European Party 

New Housing Initiatives

One of the most pressing issues of our time is the inadequate provision of social housing. It is an area of policy that has been neglected by successive governments for many decades.

The results of this neglect are all too obvious in both urban and rural areas. The demand for housing far outstrips the supply and secure, adequate and affordable housing is now a distant dream for the majority of families and individuals.

The Progressive European Party intends to address this problem from its very roots.

Central government does not, at present, allow local government to borrow against the value of their housing stock in order to raise the finance necessary to build new housing. In addition local government is not allowed to use the money it generates from the right to buy scheme to build new housing. If such borrowing and relocation of funds were to be allowed, new social housing could be built at no cost to the taxpayer. If, furthermore, 50% per cent of these new builds were sold on the private market, the revenue from these sales could be put towards the cost of each project. Such a scheme would work perfectly in predominantly urban areas. In such cases the high building costs would be offset by high house prices. Thus the revenues from properties sold would be more than enough to cover the costs of the entire project. In other words, each well-managed project would provide new social housing completely free of cost. In some areas of the country, the whole cost of building might not be fully recoverable from private sales. In such instances, however, it would still be possible to build social housing at approximately half the cost of solely social estates. The savings generated would thus be enormous. The effect of this would be that the chronic housing shortages in the private sector would at last be alleviated. Social housing would at last be available to all who need it.

The total cost of building could not be expected to be reimbursed from the sales in every part of the UK. Nevertheless, each project would still ultimately cost nothing. For any remaining unsold properties would be rented. This rental revenue would easily cover interest payments on any outstanding loans. These housing initiatives will also provide an opportunity to upgrade building regulations to require high standards of safe, fire-proof insulation for all new builds. Catastrophes of the type typified by the Grenfell Tower disaster would be averted and winter heating costs would simultaneously be minimised. New flats, for instance, would have only one outside wall. Thus insulation cost per unit would not be significantly greater. New building regulations would also make solar panels and, where appropriate, mounted wind-turbines mandatory. The electricity generated could either be used directly for heating or, at times of surplus, be sold into the National Grid. Technologies such as storage radiators and efficient insulation would provide efficient and cheap or cost-free heating. Fuel poverty for occupants would become a thing of the past. Providing suitable housing for all would save local authorities millions of pounds. Currently local authorities spend large sums on bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless. By the same token, at present, when a family becomes homeless, children have to be taken into care. This is inordinately expensive. Central government, moreover, currently spends £25 billion on the UK's housing benefit bill. To sum up, the need for local authorities to build low-cost, inferior housing would be obviated. Because about half of new homes would be sold on the open market they would need to be of a high standard to attract buyers. Finally, therefore, the plight of first time buyers and council waiting lists would, in due course, be ended. Good quality homes would be available for everyone at no cost to the taxpayer.

Our slide into Right wing free market libertarianism

  Progressive European Party

What was so shamefully christened project fear, that was in fact, the very real concerns of people for their own and their countries well being, has turned out to be mostly accurate. It is fair to say that there has not been the fast overnight crash that may have been the outcome with a no-deal. It has been more like a slow death of a thousand cuts. But it is a significant blow to trade between us and the European Union bloc. 

This was probably more intentional than we may have first thought. They clearly knew what the outcome of leaving would be. How many unpublished assessments of the various deal or no deal scenarios have there been. The worrying thing is that they did not care if there was a no-deal or if they just signed any last minute deal that the EU put in front of them. Not minding the chaos that ensures from leaving because they want the UK to turn its back on EU trade. That is why they are making the UK-EU trade harder to do and less profitable. It is a failure of our democracy and also of the democratic structures within the Conservative party, that has allowed people who are clearly only out to line there own pockets, being able to hijack the political system. Using it to push their own private agenda with no regard for the welfare of the citizens who elected them. Let alone those of us who voted in a different way. Businesses that depend on EU trade going to the wall was a sacrifice that they are more than willing to make. That was all a part of their plan, it is not the direction that they want the country to continue to go in. Which means the bigger picture is that they have other plans and they are keeping that little dark secret from us. 

Across the water, things have eventually moved on. The opponents of far-right extremism got themselves motivated and pulled out all the stops to win. It is interesting however to note that Trump received more votes in 2020 then he did in 2016, making it really tight. What did it in the end for Trump were his failings with regards to dealing with the pandemic. Trump lost because of Covid. 

We need to take note of this because regardless of how we may feel about the daily toll of Brexit dividends the quitters are still intrenched in their views. It may well look to us that by losing the battle we have at least won the argument. But that is not so, I see comments every day like, “it is only a bit more paperwork” and “you can work in the EU if you want, you only have to fill in a form”. So I don’t think that Brexit job losses empty supermarket shelves or Priti Patel acting like a little NAZI is going to win it for us. But COVID19 can. Holding Boris Johnson and his Governments feet to the fire over their handling of the pandemic with its seemingly never-ending death tole is how we can win.

I am sorry to come to the inevitable concussion that because of the limiting constraints of our sub-standard political system that we have to endure we will have to vote Labour in the next General Election. It is with a heavy heart that I say this, socialism is only marginally better than conservatism. But at least there are many Labour MP’s that are still pro EU. The main agenda has to be to stop the countries rapid slide into libertarianism. A Labour win is the only way that this can be achieved. 

Our biggest loss is that we are no longer a part of the greatest project in world history. The peaceful transformation of Europe into a Nation state. It is to our shame and detriment that this has happened. We will, in the end, return to the United Europe that we have been so forcibly disconnected from. But we are going to have to do this one election at a time.

Philip Notley

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com 

Nineteen Eighty-Four

    Progressive European Party

One of the things that we can take from George Orwell's 1984 is that if you can control the past by the rewriting of it, then you can control the present. This is what happened to our world in 2016 and it has continued to happen since. Not the rewriting and editing of history as was being done in Orwell’s book. We can after all still read old newspapers and history books and still view old newsreels and documentaries unadulterated.

 

The rewriting that I am referring to has been done by the biased slant put on the social history of the UK from the end of WW2 until today. And on the pre-war era of Empire and global domination that this country prospered by. As well as the war years themselves where it is spun, we were standing alone against tyranny. 

I do not remember any of the anti-European Union spin doctors saying, make Britain great again, but that is what it amounted to. 

Looking at the past through rose coloured glasses and making out that there is a twenty-ninth member of the EU called Brussels that somehow tells all the other member states what to do. An oppressor that dominates our lives and takes away our freedom of choice and self-determination. That holds us back from once again being the greatest nation on earth is what has been spun. 

We can not rerun the 2016 referendum and even if we could the result would probably still be the same. The fact is that if you tell people what they want to hear then they tend to believe you. 

One recent new spin that has been put on our present predicament is that it is the remainers who have taken away the option of a “soft Brexit”. It is our opposition that has made only a hard Brexit now possible. Whereas the truth is no soft opinion was ever put on the table. If there had been a Norway deal on offer I for one would never have gone on all those Marches. 

The past is easily forgotten as it is diluted by the present. The present we have today is dominated by COVID19. The death of thousands of people is always going to be a far worse outcome than the negative effects of leaving the European Union without a pandemic was ever likely to have been. And if we are not careful after the bendy banana day of the First of January the benefits of EU membership will become a distant memory. 

As time goes by the job losses and social deprivation that is happening because of Covid will be hard to distinguish from the similar effects caused by Brexit. 

So how do we make our own spin on events that can distinguish between Covid and the loss of trade that will come about from Brexit? How can we make a new case for EU membership once lorry parks and the end of freedom of movement have become normalised as a part of life?

We took our eye off the ball before and were outmanoeuvred by people who only care about their own prosperity and don’t care at all about their fellow citizens. This was our fault, when were we in parliament square with our EU flags before 2016. Never as far as I can remember. We need to make sure that we do not make the same mistake again. So what should be our next move? As soon as the Covid restrictions are at last over we need to get back on the streets with our flags and never let them forget about the prosperity and economic security that we have lost. 

It is likely, it is almost a certainty, that the EU member states will recover economically from the pandemic far faster than we can by standing alone. They will also be taking an economic hit from Brexit but it will be nowhere as bad as the one that we will be suffering from. Pointing to the EU as an example of where we could be today if we have stayed a member is a good starting point for our campaign. We have to make a strong case that can be distinguished from the downturn in the economy caused by Covid and we need to start doing so now. 

Philip Notley 

ProgressiveEuropeanParty@gmail.com

This is not a democracy

      Progressive European Party

It is shameful to wake up in a world where a bunch of unscrupulous charlatans have taken power and are unashamedly creaming off the country's wealth into their own and their friend’s pockets, sending us all into ruination in the process.

The Progressive Party's call for Direct Democracy would end any possibility of the Citizens of this country being ripped off in this way ever again.  

There would still be elected politicians doing their job just as now however when it comes to voting on policies we would all be participating in the vote. There would, of course, be times like now with the pandemic where a government would need to use emergency powers to take control. But woe betide them if they got it wrong. They could easily be removed from power.

Sadly all we can do today is sit back and wait for four more years and hope the next lot manages better. We are no better off now than we would be if we lived in a dictatorship. This is not a democracy.

Philip Notley 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/21/reek-corruption-british-politics-discontent-democracy

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/corruption-and-dark-money-now-the-life-blood-of-the-tory-party/

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/uk-corruption-conservative-party-dark-money-boris-johnson-brexit

Illegal immigration, what is the solution

  Progressive European Party

Some of the people who wish to restrict immigration into the UK and their supporters insist that illegal immigrants receive benefits. Whereas in reality illegal immigrants do not get housed by local authorities or receive any state help. 

The confusion comes from the likes of Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, who try to muddy the waters between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. 

The picture being painted by Hopkins and Farage is that we are soft on refugees. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are one and the same thing and they are advocating that we need a regime far severer than the one we have today to deal with them. What can we say, or for that matter do, about this type of fake news? Because the truth is somewhat different.

In May 2009, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reviewed the UK and expressed concern “at the low level of support and difficult access to health care for rejected asylum-seekers.” It recommended that the UK “ensure that asylum seekers are not restricted in their access to the labour market while their claims for asylum are being processed” and review the regulation of “essential services to rejected asylum-seekers, and undocumented migrants, including the availability of HIV/AIDS treatment.” In 2010, the UNSpecial Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants endorsed these recommendations and urged the UK Government to ensure “that refused asylum-seekers are not left destitute while they remain in the United Kingdom.”

In other words, despite what Farage and Hopkins may tell their supporters we already treat them badly. Illegal immigrants would most likely be arrested and deported if they did try to claim a benefit and asylum seekers are not here illegally.  

The UK is a signatory to the UN's 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. There are certain refugee rights that we are obligated to meet as signatories. 

These rights include:

• The right not to be forcibly returned, or refouled, to a country in which the refugee has reason to fear persecution (Article 33)

• The right not to be expelled, except under certain strictly defined conditions (Article 32)

• Exemption from penalties for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31)

• The right to work (Article 17)

• The right to housing (Article 21)

• The right to education (Article 22)

• The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23)

• The right to freedom of religion and free access to courts (Articles 4 and 16)

• Freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26)

• The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28)

If Farage thinks that we should leave the convention then that is what he should be campaigning for instead of trying to make out that we are a soft touch. In reality, the UK is not a soft touch for asylum seekers, far from it, in many cases, our provisions for refugees are woefully inadequate.

The type of racist propaganda being whipped up by these zealots has always been around. As anyone who remembers the National Front in the mid-1970s can testify. Today because of modern communications this kind of rhetoric is far more accessible to their supporters. Most of their followers seem to lap it up without attempting to make any factual appraisal, mostly I suspect because of confirmation bias. 

However, we should not let our repugnance for the peddlers of racism distract us from facing up to the immigration problem that we do have. Not the people who come here and then claim asylum, with them there is a set protocol to follow. The problems lie with the immigrants who are living here illegally. Most of whom did not cross the channel in a rubber dingy, but came here legally and then stayed on after their visa had expired. Many of them come from countries that you would most likely not associate with illegal immigration. The United States and Australia for example.

There are countless others brought here by people smugglers and are then forced to work, essentially as slave labour, to pay off the "debt" to their traffickers. Not only do these people not have access to public funds, but health and safety, workers rights or the minimum wage simply don't exist for them. 

It is not known how many illegals there are in the country, estimates put the numbers at anything between five hundred thousand to well over a million. Being part of the black economy no tax revenue is collected from them and most likely not much from their employers either.

What are the solutions?

Boris Johnson has in the past suggested that we should have an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Being Boris Johnson his proposals are low on detail and change what little detail they do have each time he puts the idea forward. His idea is to give amnesty only to people who have lived here for 5,10,12 or 15 years depending on when he said it. This will not solve the problem for anyone arriving in the back of a lorry this week or for most of the ones who have already arrived because they will not have the documentation necessary to prove how long their stay has been.

Talk about a Catch 22, illegals can stay if they have documentation, but they don’t have documentation because they are illegals. 

The only real way of solving the problem is to give amnesty to everyone regardless of how long they have been here. This would give them the right to remain and work here indefinitely so bringing them into the system. With the possibility of over one million people to process, this would have to be very well organised.  

Wouldn't this just give the green light to the people smugglers? A smugglers charter. 

No, in fact, it would put the smugglers out of business. They rely on the people they have brought into the country paying off their "debt" by working for them after they have arrived. This will no longer happen to new arrivals and the ones here now can be set free from their servitude. Hopefully, this will also help to identify and prosecute the people involved in this illegal trade. 

What happens after the amnesty period is over, the smugglers will just go into business again?

Everything will have to be tightened up to stop this from happening. More international cooperation will be needed to track down the criminals. It is also imperative that illegals that are found are treated as innocent victims and given help. Everything should be done to pick apart the organisations that maintain them here. The Chinese cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay were all living somewhere and working for someone. And temporary visitors will need to register on arrival and be traced so we can be sure that they are all leaving on time.

If we accept that we have a major but mostly unseen problem then the resources will have to be made available to prevent us from getting in this position again. Giving illegals no options other than to remain hidden or be arrested and deported can never be a solution.

Philip Notley

progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com

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