New think-tank the Intergenerational Foundation (IF) landed with a big splash today as they launched their new report Hoarding of Housing. The big headline is that there are now 25 million unoccupied bedrooms in British homes.
Meanwhile, the government is proposing a radical shake-up to the English planning system, to get the country back to growth by making development easier whilst tackling the housing crisis. So extreme is the government’s prescription for housing sickness, however, that even The Telegraph has been moved to campaign against the possible loss of greenness in our pleasant land.
IF’s report argues that “while younger families are increasingly squeezed into small flats and under-sized houses, older people are often rattling around in big houses with many bedrooms standing empty, often for years”. The solution they advocate is to find ways to make it easier for older people to move to smaller homes; not forcing them out, but nudging them (to use a vogueish word) through changes in tax incentives.
At a launch event for IF this afternoon at the House of Commons (hosted by Tessa Jowell), a group of Alliance for Future Generations members and IF friends mused that we need more intergenerational solidarity, linked to a concerted effort to head off the risk of intragenerational sniping between generations already living today (thanks to Colin Hines for ‘solidarity not sniping’).
So less of the ‘oldsters hoarding bedrooms’ that attracted some parts of the media; more of the ‘working together to secure adequate housing for present and future generations’.
Amen to that.
One significant problem is that there’s no consistency in how the government invokes the needs of ’future generations’. My observation, based on some quick and dirty google searches (the results of which now languish in a lengthy Word document), is that when they do so, it’s almost always in justification of taking cherished things, or landscapes, away from present generations: access to reasonably priced higher education, for example.
Planning Minister Greg Clark has argued that the (awful) proposed (English) National Planning Policy Framework, with its presumption in favour of developers – sorry, development (mis-titled ‘sustainable development’ in the document, though it’s no such thing) – is designed to ensure adequate housing for future generations whilst stimulating economic growth.
IF, invoking what amounts to intragenerational fairness (between generations already alive) rather than intergenerational fairness, point to another option: finding ways to enable more people to benefit from the existing housing stock, in ways that might just help older people to meet their own needs whilst meeting the needs of younger people too. Not that that offers an easy way out either.
Still, Mr Clark, please take note: IF has offered up an important contribution to the debate about planning reform in England.
Choices and trade-offs about intergenerational fairness (for trade-offs there are, though solidarity there must be) demand proper government strategy and policy frameworks anchored to solid institutional settings. A Commissioner for Future Generations perhaps; a Select Committee on Future Generations; intergenerational impact assessments; government and parliament equipped to deliver on a long-term vision.
Much much more, in other words, than rhetorical appeals alone to undefined ‘future’ generations as public spending cuts widen unfairness in the present and sow the seeds of greater intergenerational injustice in the future.
Next post: why high fuel prices mean we have to prepare democracy to deliver sustainable development…
3 Comments
The current “baby boomers” come from what was a majority of population of workers at the start of their careers in the late 60′s onwards and were referred to as “working class”. This generation worked more than 40 hours per week and often on saturday and sunday to make up a salary that qualified for a house. Usually both salaries at the higher working week were taken in to consideration. The majority of “working class” baby boomers started work at aged 16. There was high unemployment in the northern parts of the UK due to heavy industry closing down but those that were lucky enough to keep their homes both working and paying a mortgage based on two salaries at longer than 40 hours per week. Those that who lost their jobs, a lot lost their homes and the families were divided. At lot of the families did not reunite in their childhood. Those that have worked hard to rehouse themselves and learn a new career are the people being referred to as room blockers. In many cases their first property would have been a 1 one bedroom flat or one up and one down terrace. Couples starting off today, start work later, take gap years to travel abroad, have luxuries such as new cars, mobile phones, electronics, frequent holidays overseas , sky TV and a good nightlife. This was not in the dreams of the majority of the working population of the baby boomers and the preceding generations. The current families starting off, whilst many may be finding it hard the majority of the population are middle class, their first home is two or three bedroom, two cars and all of the added extras. They are struggling it’s true but to maintain a much higher quality of life of non essenstials than the “room blockers” described. Overall the baby boomer room blocker generation are having their retirement age extended, having started working at an earlier age and without any gap year or two in between and working longer hours. Where the retirement age has been extended to beyond 60 and then 65, there is no special program to encourage business to employ older workers like there is for graduate and apprentices and by default, their housing will become available as they will not be able to earn the wage to keep their homes anyway………….
I do agree with Chris – the baby boomer births were just after the end of WW2, I was one of them, born into a world of rationing and austerity. Started work at 16 in 1963. I saved up, with my fiancee, for our first house – we had to move out of London as the prices were unaffordable and we moved back in after 3 years when we could afford to. The Building Societys would only let you borrow 2.5 times highest salary plus 1 time lowest which we could afford to pay. Then came the years of spiralling inflation of the 1970s this followed on from the Wilson’s government of wage freezing and prices and incomes policies.
It wasnt all sweetness and roses in those days however now the mortgage is paid off and we are now in receipt of our pensions, along comes this report from a questionable foundation that probably has charitable status that appears to be resentful as to our status in life. We are being blamed for all the ills of this economic situation along with the bankers. If you just look at the basic history of the last 60 years no generation has had it so good every generation has had their worries and anxieties so dont blame us that have just retired.
I have never heard so much rubbish talked about housing.