On 21 November 2011 the ConDems finally unveiled their so-called ‘Housing Strategy for England’ with the fingerprints of free market think tanks all over it. According to the Coalition, the housing crisis is really the crisis facing aspiring home owners and those who want to move to where new jobs are being created, which is in turn blamed on the state’s stranglehold on house building from the “central planning, top-down targets and bureaucratic structures” of the previous Labour government.

The solution is thus simple – liberate the housing market from these obstacles and Adam Smith’s famous invisible hand of competition will work its magic. But of course we’ve seen and heard it all before and we know only too well what freeing the market really means: a new round of public bailouts for the big corporate banks and builders, pushing more people into a lifetime of debt just for the illusion of home ownership and a new wave of housing privatisation. Such measures will only worsen the real housing crisis – the expansion of insecure, unaffordable housing, overcrowding, and rogue landlordism – but that is precisely the outcome desired by the blue half of the Coalition as they seek to shore up private property and attack the housing protections and rights won over many centuries of struggle by cutting funding for social rented housing and rolling out a new system that mirrors private renting so as to discipline the working class into working harder, faster, longer for less pay.

This class warfare only furthers the contradictions in the housing market and explains why the government is so keen to boost the private rental sector by beefing up private property rights, weakening tenants’ (and squatters) rights and unlocking huge swathes of public land for low-risk development. Regardless of tenure, renting housing will be more expensive than ever before, less regulated and more precarious for all tenants. Such a strategy works hand in glove with welfare reform that will gradually expel 100,000s of low income households out of their neighbourhoods into cheaper, lower quality housing in areas where employment is impossible to come by, paving the way for a new wave of gentrification that will further enrich property owners.

This is the return of what Ralph Miliband called ‘Class War Conservatism’ and it is what the ConDems Housing Strategy is really all about.

The attack on the planning system

The government’s plan for ending the disastrous house price volatility and speculative bubbles of the boom-boost years is a dual approach of eye-watering austerity and removing the fetters on development. In other words, alongside mass unemployment and public service cuts, the ConDems want to dismantle the current planning system so that planned development is replaced by developer-led development.

The existing statutory planning system is being replaced with a streamlined National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Gone are targets for regional house building and brownfield redevelopment or the requirement that local authorities exact affordable housing contributions from developments over a certain size. Affordable housing is redefined as anything ‘below’ market rents and prices, which makes it meaningless.

The opposition of local authorities and communities to residential development is to be bought off through the New Homes Bonus, launched in August 2010, that match funds the Council Tax on every new home built or empty home re-used for 6 years. Local communities, meanwhile, may lose important planning powers to stop unwanted development, such as preventing the loss of Village Greens.

Deregulation

Liberalising planning is joined by a wider war on regulations known as the Red Tape Challenge. We have already seen the requirements for the Zero Carbon Homes watered down and the removal of many standards for homes built on surplus public sector land. Despite the government's strong rhetoric on bringing England’s 700,000 empty homes into use, the government is watering down local councils’ powers to get empty homes back into use by extending the vacancy time threshold that Empty Dwelling Management Orders can be used from 6 to 24 months and making the process more onerous.

More taxpayer bail outs for corporate banks and builders

The taxpayer is helping to finance demand for new build homes through the £400m FirstBuy scheme providing a 20% equity loan to first-time buyers, and the New Build Indemnity Scheme (NBIS) that offers 95% mortgages backed by a taxpayer-guaranteed indemnity fund for mortgage lenders. Developers will also be allowed to challenge Section 106 agreements over contributions to local infrastructure and housing needs agreed in better market conditions and tap into a new £400m Get Britain Building Investment Fund aimed at getting 16,000 homes built on stalled sites.

Housing benefit reforms

Private tenants will be hardest hit as their benefit levels will now only cover the bottom 30% of the local housing market instead of the bottom 50% as before, and they will face absolute benefit caps regardless of their actual rent. Large families and single people aged between 25 and 35 have been targeted for additional housing benefit cuts. The reforms are expected to create the mass displacement of households in London and other high-cost rental areas.

Privatising social housing

Funding for new social housing has been cut by over 50% and redirected to supporting new social homes with 80% of market rents and flexible tenancies – the so-called Affordable Rent model. Local councils and Housing Associations can also apply to convert a proportion of their existing and future voids and re-lets to Affordable Rent properties, continually eating into the existing stock of social rented homes. Social housing will also be further privatised with plans to increase Right to Buy discounts to 50% of market values, and the government will recycle some of the monies raised into the Affordable Rent programme to replace every secure, low-rent social home sold with a new insecure, 80% market rent property.

Ending security of tenure for new tenants

New social housing tenants will no longer have the legal right to a secure tenancy and could instead now receive a minimum 2two year contract. There are proposals to force high-earning social tenants to pay higher rents or be evicted, and from 2013, working age social tenants deemed to be ‘under occupying’ their homes will also have their housing benefit reduced. This is likely to affect 670,000 tenants by an average loss of £13 per week, forcing many to downsize and move into the private rental sector because of a shortage of suitable social homes that match their state-determined needs.

Punishing the excluded

The homeless no longer have the right to a secure social home for life and local authorities will now be able to force them into a 12-month contract in the private rental sector. Squatting, which is largely done by homeless people, is to be largely criminalised. Gypsy and Traveller communities will no longer be able to gain retrospective planning permission, further marginalising and disempowering them. £30m has also been cut from the budget for providing sites for Gypsy and Traveller communities. The Coalition plans to dock the benefits and evict tenants found guilty of anti-social behaviour, including the summer riots. Access to legal aid for housing issues will be cut back.

Community this, community that

Much of the ConDem’s housing assault is being brought in by the Localism Act 2011, the legislative arm of Cameron’s Big Society idea that promises to decentralise power to local communities. At first glance, new laws such as the 'community right to buy' assets of community value, the ‘community right to reclaim land’ and the ‘community right to challenge’ the provision of local services look appealing. Who’s not to like the sound of ‘community-led planning’ or the ‘community right to build’ new homes subject to the support of a majority of local people through a community referendum.

It’s just privatisation and centralisation

But read the small print and you'll see that the Big Society is code for dismantling the welfare state, privatising public services and removing regulatory protections on business. Local groups, charities and volunteers will have to compete with big business to run services and venues, or buy buildings the local authority can no longer afford to keep open but which local people depend on, like community centres, nurseries, schools, and traditional markets. The idea of 'Open Public Services' paves the way for big business to take over profitable services and activities, and for public companies that run council housing to be fully privatised. In reality, very few publicly run services and owned assets could be run by local people - government will ensure that the cream goes to the fatcats. And localism is not really localisation as the Act confers 145 new powers on the Secretary of State.