Manifestos: Part 6 (the final instalment)

Having completed the party political analysis, I wanted to turn to the manifestos produced by sector organisations which tend to push their own interest.  In truth, I haven’t found as many as I thought I might find, which is disappointing.  Here is what I could find, followed by some concluding thoughts:

National Residential Landlords Association

The NRLA issued their manifesto back in January.  It’s a short one pager but demonstrates what in my view is the usual sophistication that they adopt as a pressure group representing the good landlord.  So, for example, they ask for stability in the legislation, progress in delivering the Welsh housing survey, and tackling fuel poverty.  The interesting things for which they call are the ability of renters to be able to challenge above market-rent increases.  That is an interesting response that reflects their positionality but also demonstrates that they will seek a watered down version of rent regulation and control.  Like me, they also call for increased investment in housing standards, noting that “Enforcement is inconsistent and under-resourced.  Too often, unsafe properties go under the radar”.  This is what I mean by sophisticated because they are asking for things that would, no doubt, be supported by all organisations, including those that run counter to their instinct.  It creates a bargaining position for them with the new government, and they are likely to have a seat at the table, so to speak.

Shelter Cymru

Shelter describe the housing “emergency” in Wales, and call for three things: a person-centred approach to homelessness across Wales; affordable private rent and security; enough social and accessible homes.  They want us to “vote for home”, which is a neat catchphrase.

In relation to homelessness, they call for more funding for homelessness prevention and advice, an end to gatekeeping tests, and specialist health, financial and other support to help people facing homelessness.  It is difficult to disagree with any of that.  My sense is that the the new Act will require the first; the second is likely incapable of resolution if one follows the street-level bureaucracy literature because such bureaucrats need ways to manage their workload; and the third is an obvious ask but seemingly difficult to achieve.  Homelessness is so obviously a multi-faceted thing which wrongly we see structurally as a housing problem.  Multi-agency working is what I cut my teeth on as a researcher in the early 1990s, and its seeming impossibility as agencies seemed to talk past each other.  So, it is an important, but hard to achieve, ask both politically and practically.

They want rent restriction in the PRS – so, presumably, something like the Westminster Act rules would do it for them – ending the no-fault eviction, and strengthening renters’ rights to challenge the quality and condition of rented property.  I’ve just referred to the work of Wyss et al in the previous post, and have been doing quite a lot of reading about precarity.  There is obviously a significant issue around housing precarity, but having stronger legislation assumes its enforceability, and thought needs to be given to that going forward.

They want a “clear plan” for the “significant” (no number fortunately) increase of social homes, a more pragmatic approach to standards in the sector, and a more consistent approach to the allocation of social homes.

They finish with a final flourish about the right to home: “A right to adequate housing would make sure that any government is planning for beyond the next Senedd term and is paving the way for long-term, sustainable solutions to the housing emergency. Shelter Cymru strongly believes that a legal right to adequate housing would drive the changes we need to see in our housing system so that we can build a better future for this and future generations.”

CIH Housing Futures Cymru

Given that the sharpest end of the housing crisis/emergency/scandal is generally felt by the young, it is fantastic to read this important document.  Indeed, with respect to everybody else who have produced their manifestos, I think that this is the one to read.  There is a fantastic paper on the issues around Generation Rent (* reference below) that is well worth reading and to which my colleague and co-research bidder, Jenny Hoolachan contributed (#namecheck).

They support the right to adequate housing too (so we disagree on that), but, of their asks, there are two that particularly resonate for me – improve housing options of young people; and, support and resource housing professionals.  They want us to adopt the Westminster rent rules, stronger standards and enforcement (see what I mean about NRLA), and, “Support young adults housing needs: Embed young adults housing needs in national housing strategy, reframing this issue as a social justice and economic productivity issue”.  The latter is such an important way of re-framing the debate by changing the discourse around housing.  It is a pretty cheap thing to do but, to coin a phrase, changes our housing imagination.

In terms of social housing careers, something which no political party has mentioned, it is brilliant that they have drawn attention to this issue.  If we ant a vibrant sector, we need committed housing professionals, and people who can think differently about the role.  They need to be properly resourced and paid.  They need proper data.  They need a career structure.  Who could disagree with that?

CIH Cymru

The CIH Cymru manifesto follows a similar pattern.  They also sign up to the right to adequate housing (sigh).  They want grant levels for new social housing increased to £646 million pa to build an additional 20,000 social homes on top of the existing current target for the next Senedd, while recognising that we need a better calculation of housing need in Wales.  They also want existing homes improved.  But, the stand-out for me is they ask for co-ordinated action to address the stigma of social housing.  Here, they make the best case (imho) for the right to housing as follows:

“The right to adequate housing is a key part of changing the narrative around social housing in Wales and helping to promote the positive impact of diverse communities. The right to adequate housing is not just about a right, it is about a wholesale approach to housing, including using it as a building block for improving society. The right will address discrimination and ensure equality – including positive measures to ensure access to housing and eliminate housing discrimination. If we are working towards everyone in Wales having a safe, suitable and affordable home then this can only build equity across housing tenures.”

Random Concluding Thoughts

My concluding thoughts on these manifestos are: it is interesting how England, which has been the site of the worst inequality and precarity in housing, is now held up by implicitly by political parties and explicitly by some of these organisations as leading the way in the post-neoliberalisation of housing.  What this annoying phrase means is that there is a sense across the world that there is a need for greater regulation of housing and particularly the PRS, and more governments are regulating.  Whether this is “post-neoliberal” (and what that even means) is up for grabs, but we are undeniably in a revisionist moment.  We could probably do better than England, though, and here some thought will be needed.

I have quite often repeated my thoughts on the right to housing, or the right to adequate housing, but it is undeniable that this is absolutely on the agenda.  If it is to be more than symbolic, then it will need to be worked through with (again) more thought needed.  It is very easy to establish such a right, but much harder to operationalise it, and, as I have said before, be careful what you wish for, as it may well come back to bite you.

Finally, what I would have liked to have seen in the manifestos is more of an evidence base and more recognition of the social science literatures, including the socio-legal literature.  I have felt that Plaid have produced thoughtful policy documents on housing during this Senedd, but, and I think that this is our (academics) failure, our evidence is simply not given credence.  This is absolutely not a sour grapes thing.  But my sense is that increasingly we are talking past each other, despite the wonders of open access.  Indeed, open access to our work just demonstrates its impenetrability as we are working to different professional mores.  There needs to be some movement in line.