What does equality mean in housing?

One of the most fundamental questions of governing to my mind is that of equality. Political systems hinge on their interpretation of this concept – usually along with how they understand freedom and what it should apply to.

It’s just one woman’s opinion, but I think one of the reasons that Jeremy Corbyn has captured the hearts (not really minds) of Britain’s disenfranchised youth and deprived is that he has returned fundamentally to addressing these concepts. The Conservatives meanwhile, I think seem too wrapped up in politics and policy to remember that ideology matters – and it wins votes.

Back in the Labour government of Tony Blair, I recall an expression I thought maddening at the time and still do. At some point, his government claimed, as part of his central 1997 election winning policy, that they dreamed of a future where all children got above average results in schools exams.

This is oxymoronic. And yet it got to the very heart of that question of equality.

What, I believe, he meant was that every child should have an equal opportunity to achieve this goal. Not every child’s intelligence or social advantages are equal though. And thus we come to the divide between the left and socialism and the right and meritocracy.

Each ideology appeals to different sorts of people with different kinds of advantages and disadvantages and belief systems. But this is what Corbyn acts on and what Theresa May seems unable to. The very essence of standing for something is that not everyone will agree with you. Corbyn couldn’t care less about that. Mrs May is paralysed by it.

This division of approach is particularly evident in my mind where housing is concerned. Scrapping stamp duty for first-time buyers is about winning votes from Corbyn’s heartland – London boroughs and young voters. But newsflash, these aren’t voters who are going to abandon Corbynism because Theresa gave them £5,000. They follow Jeremy because he talks about freedom, liberty to speak out, evil bankers (who by the way robbed a lot of these voters of a decent start to their working lives when they graduated during the financial crisis and the bankers kept driving their Bentleys thanks very much), housing that’s free, trains that don’t cost thousands of pounds, et al.

Now, those of us who look beyond the words and promises, and who have read George Orwell’s 1984, know that words and promises of equality and freedom need to be backed up by action, economies and policies that work in practice. Socialism – despite all its promise of a fairer future – has yet to demonstrate success in any of its forms over the years.

Ask a 22-year old Corbynite if they’d like to live in the communist regime in China where government controlled enterprise accounts for the majority of production providers and behaviours both social and corporate are curtailed by men in suits in far away ivory towers. Ask them whether Karl Marx had a point but Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin just forgot that the means were as important as the end. Ask them what they think of North Korea.

What are they likely to say? Err, on second thoughts, I rather like my democracy, for all its faults. At least I’ve got a job, a car, a health service and I’m allowed to say what I think.

Now, I know this is all drastically diminutive of whole ideologies and approaches to governing but I really think politics must go back to these fundamentals of equality and freedom if we are to thrive in a post-Brexit world for one, and also if we are to build the type of housing market that people in this country need.

When deciding how to go forwards, what is the first question you need to ask? Where do you want to end up? Why has no government answered this except in terms of the number of new housing starts? The number of homes we build shouldn’t be the objective – it’s the means to the end.

So what is the end? What does equality mean in housing?

Under Thatcher is meant the freedom to buy and own. Under Macmillan is meant access to socially provided homes. Under Brown and Blair it meant freedom of buy multiple properties and earn vast incomes renting them out to those with less capital.

I’m not sure I know what it means today. Given where we are starting, an unfortunate reality we must simply accept and deal with, I think we must consider a balance.

Currently the market is split roughly 60:20:20 privately owned homes to those renting privately and those in social housing.

The question I would raise is whether this is a realistic or healthy balance?

We need to consider our end game. What is Britain post-Brexit? Where do we stand on equality and freedom? And what do those words mean for one of our most basic human rights? Shelter.

The make up of our housing market is a good, if rather blunt, way to approximate our social ideology and how it has played out.

Three fifths of British homes are owned privately. That is a legacy of capitalism. Just one fifth is socially funded housing. This too is a (not so great) legacy of capitalism.

If most of the country is feeling unsure and afraid of Brexit, then politicians (in addition to sorting out the practicalities) must also give them something to look forward to. Housing means hope for nearly everyone in this country.

Deciding what that hope is, should be top of the priority list now.