Our candidate for the London Assembly for the South West (Hounslow, Kingston, Richmond) spoke at public meeting in Chiswick where he was able to present the Socialist Party case and make some pertinent observations upon our political rivals in the campaign.
All the candidates are making the extravagant promises
that politicians usually do, particularly extravagant in this election because
there are two constraints on what they can do. Not just the way the capitalist
system works (and must work) to put profits before people, but the additional
constraint that 93% of the Mayor’s income comes from central government and is ,
in this time of capitalism-imposed austerity, unlikely, in fact highly
unlikely, to be increased.
The most extravagant promises are being made regarding
housing, as with Sadiq Khan’s to “fix the Tory housing crisis”. Of course it’s not
a “Tory” housing crisis but an ordinary, typical capitalist housing crisis. As
we say in our leaflet “The problem is not the Tories … it’s capitalism”. It’s
caused by demand exceeding supply, as has always tended to be the case in
capital cities such as London which offer many jobs and so attract workers who
need housing.
Where paying demand for housing exceeds supply, rents,
house prices and land prices all go up, with capitalist firms which invest in
housebuilding and housing letting for profit giving preference to housing for
those who can pay the most, i.e on providing the type of housing that is
“unaffordable” for many people. After all, in an economy involving production
for profit why should, why would, capitalist firms producing housing for profit
provide this for people who can’t afford to pay for it?
Here’s what the candidates are promising.
The Tory Goldsmith says he’ll double house-building to
50,000 a year by 2020 from the current 25,000 a year.
The Greens and the Liberals are both promising 200,000
by 2020, i.e an average of 50,000 a year.
But the most extravagant is Labour’s Khan who is
promising 80,000 a year.
A bit odd, you might think, that the Labour Party should
be making a more extravagant promise than the Greens who, like all parties with
no chance of winning, can promise what they like. Maybe the Greens realise that
Khan won’t be able to deliver and think that (relative) honesty is a better
policy for attracting votes. But they, in promising to “cap rent rises”, are
still making a promise they can’t deliver on as the GLA has no power to do
this.
Actually, their candidate Sian Berry in an interview
with the local press has made a relevant point about the housing problem in
London:
“It is just an enormous
task that can’t be solved with a single silver bullet. The other parties will
try to sign big deals with developers which is the model we have now, and it isn’t
working.”
This model is based on the profit motive. The central
government grants local councils, including Greater London, a sum of money to
commission housebuilding by private profit-seeking developers on condition that
they include some “affordable” housing in their project (defined as 80% of the
going market rent, which of course is still unaffordable for most people). The
private developers put in a bid, which includes an element for profit, for
money for a particular development.
It’s easy to see why Berry sees a drawback in this
scheme: the developers are only going to come up with a project and put in a
bid if they think they can make a reasonable profit out of it. This is where
Khan’s scheme comes unstuck. He has criticised Boris for not spending all the
money the government has allocated the Mayor for affordable housing projects. One
element in this will be the developers’ reluctance to bid when it’s not
profitable enough.
Khan’s promises will make it even less profitable. He
is proposing that 50% of all such contracted housebuilding should be
“affordable”. That’s going to reduce profits considerably. As is his proposal
to redefine “affordable” as one third of average local income rather than 80%
of the market rate (which he calls a “Living Rent”).
I’m prepared to predict that if Khan wins he will not
be able to commission 80,000 new homes a year on the terms he’s promising. The
way the capitalist economic system works just won’t allow it. So this is just
another example of a vote-catching politician’s promise.
So, what is the solution? There is not one within
capitalism, and certainly not within the Greater London Authority. Since the
housing problem is caused by capitalism and its production for sale with a view
to profit, including housing, it’s not going to be solved as long as capitalism
lasts.
Something much more radical is called for. A complete
revolution in the basis of society, from the existing ownership by a few and
production for profit to a society based on the common ownership and democratic
control of productive resources (land, factories, transport, communications,
etc). This will allow production to be directed towards people’s needs, not
only for housing but across the board. Houses will be built for people to live
in. Food for people to eat. Transport to get people from A to B. People won’t
have to buy the things they need. Instead the principle “from each according to
their ability, to each according to their needs” will apply, instead of distribution
according to the amount of money you have (or don’t have).
Adam Buick
Socialist Party - (SP-GB)
No comments:
Post a Comment