Why shouldn't workers own their homes? That rhetorical question served as a reason for the transformation of housing policy that has been going on for half a century, since Margaret Thatcher successfully implemented the "property revolution" in the 80s. In early May, Keir Starmer declared: "I want the Labor Party to be the party of people who own their own homes".
Of course there's no good reason why working class people shouldn't own their homes, just like there's no reason why they shouldn't drive Mercedes and vacation in the Maldives. Symbols of wealth should not be reserved only for the middle class.
However, it is clear that this issue is much more complex. The idea of "homeowner democracy" was adopted in the 20s as part of a strategy by which conservative politicians tried to suppress dangerous socialist ideas popular among workers. The same idea was used by Anthony Eden, one of the leading Conservative politicians of the 20s, to oppose Labour's housing policies in the post-war period, eventually becoming the backbone of Margaret Thatcher's strategy in the 40s.
The offer to tenants to buy the municipal apartments in which they already live, while at the same time facilitating access to bank loans and mortgages, met with a great response. Such a policy contributed to the further fragmentation of working communities and the atomization of society in the 80s. The obsession with acquiring ownership largely stemmed from the belief that social housing was inevitably of poor quality and that only private ownership could respond to the aspirations of ordinary people, that is, enable workers to "gain control" over their own lives - to borrow a phrase that originated in a different context 40 years later.
It is true, however, that poorly designed and poorly built apartments are the result of a certain political choice, and not an inevitable consequence of state management of the housing stock. In its original conception, public housing was to provide homes that would be equally attractive to members of all classes, to create communities where "the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farmer will live in the same street," as Nye Bevan, the minister, said in 1949. for health and housing, describing the vision of a jointly owned housing stock.
But political reality crushed such aspirations. Cheaply built social housing quickly became a mark of social stigma, a place where the poor and deprived end up. From Ronan Point to Grenfell Tower, it has been shown that in addition to being of poor quality, they can also be life-threatening.
"The phrase 'social housing'," writes Lynsey Hanley in Public Housing, a History of Social Housing Funds, "has become a kind of psycho-social scar: everyone frowns when they hear it." )", continues Hanley, to "poor design, identical front doors, ruined lawns, wasted optimism which now gives us the right, especially in Britain, to lightly dismiss all social democratic values." We should not be surprised that in 1979 many tenants in social housing could hardly wait for the opportunity to move into the category of owners.
However, abandoning public housing, encouraging private ownership and surrendering to market forces did not bring the expected control over their own lives to the largest number of members of the working class. The construction of new apartments has been declining since the 70s. While wages have stagnated, housing prices have risen, so ownership is now out of reach for a growing number of people. At the beginning of the 90s, four average annual incomes had to be paid for an average house, and at the end of last year, the entire nine.
Most politicians admit in principle that a new program of housing construction is needed, but in practice no one agrees that it should be in their district. That is why, last December, Rishi Sunak had to give up the proposed number of 300.000 new apartments per year, after the rebellion of members of parliament who were in principle in agreement, but on the condition that the new construction does not end up in their yard. In the meantime, the Prime Minister has given up on setting goals for the construction of new apartments, and recently even accused Labor of wanting to "concrete the green belt". It speaks to the solipsism of British politics where everyone knows what we need but there is no one to make it a reality.
In addition to the lack of housing units, a big problem is the lack of apartments at affordable prices. The construction of social housing has practically stopped. There are 1,2 million people on waiting lists. In the period from 2012-13. until 2012-22. three times as many were sold or demolished as were built. It is a calculated policy. According to Nick Clegg, David Cameron and George Osborne deliberately destroyed the sector because "the only product was an increase in the number of votes for the Labor Party".
The number of tenants in social housing, which was 1981% in 29, has more than halved today. The number of those who lease privately owned apartments has more than doubled. In a largely unregulated market, many are forced to pay high rents to live in shoddy and overcrowded buildings. Even with the program of mass housing construction and falling real estate prices, many would not be able to afford to buy an apartment.
And it shouldn't be like that. Most of the inhabitants of Vienna live in quality subsidized apartments. It's a vision of the city that Bevan would easily recognize, a place where nurses, teachers, cleaners and laborers live on the same street or block.
The city adopted such a housing policy in the 20s of the 20th century, during the "Red Vienna", when the Social Democratic Party (SPO) first won power and launched an ambitious program that will provide quality and affordable housing for everyone. They mostly succeeded in that. Thanks to the quality and affordability of social housing, apartments from private landlords are also of good quality and relatively affordable.
For the maintenance of the housing stock and the construction of new apartments, the city allocates more than 570 million euros per year, which is mostly financed by a tax of 1% on the salaries of all residents of Vienna. Elements of such a model have been adopted by many European cities, from Barcelona to Helsinki.
As the example of Vienna shows, a good housing policy requires political will and vision. The real question is not why workers shouldn't own their homes, but why shouldn't we all live in decent, adequate apartments? That requires money and higher tax rates. But this vision is not nearly as utopian as many think.
(The Guardian; Peščanik.net; translation: Đ. Tomić)
Bonus video:
