False dichotomy

You know that familiar part of radio interviews where some musician is posed contradictory alternatives and asked to choose quickly between them?  “Meat or fish?”; “United or City?”; “books or movies?”.  

Only two choices?

Of course, the answers are just what passes for entertainment, and while everyone knows that the real world is more complex, nobody is going to be amused by an answer that goes “Well, I love a good novel on a wet Sunday afternoon, but Orange Wednesday’s were fabulous and the cinema seats are so comfortable these days, so can I have both please?”

Celebrities have learned to play the game; it's called “False Dichotomy”.   And so it seems have we. You may have noticed that what passes for a row has broken out in the social housing world. 
Positions are being taken – with reported comments from Genesis and Aster on the one hand and SHOUT supporters on the other; views are being aired and shared; perhaps even destinies are being forged.

Strident headlines proclaiming that market-facing solutions are the only solutions are followed by equally vehement commitments to the values of social housing.  Of course, these respective positions stem from viewing our world through the always distorted lens of our binary-based political system.
Now don’t get me wrong, political parties are very important, especially ones in Government with every prospect of a decade of power.  So, practically, embracing their new agenda is a necessary step to secure organisational survival into the future.

A necessary step, yes.  Because Government holds, and can therefore withdraw, our licence to operate.

However, if the government lens is the only one through which we seek to develop our organisational strategy, then we are in our own minds already public bodies, just as, perhaps, we will be in the eyes of the Office for National Statistics once details of the Right to Buy are known.

And doing what is necessary is not the same as doing what is sufficient and right to develop a clear and lasting strategic direction.   Good strategy is derived from multiple perspectives and has a complexity and nuance that neither plays well into any political narrative nor is easy to portray clearly in the full glare of modern media – social or otherwise.

At Trafford Housing Trust we know we can and must up our game in the media if our great work is to be recognised and valued.

More importantly we have to have the right strategy to work to, one that balances the conflicting interests of current customers and those of would be customers; of those who view social housing as a springboard to something else, and those for whom it is a vital safety net; of those who want the right to buy their own social home and those who want to leave adequate social provision for the next generation. 

We know our strategy has to change if it is to remain relevant.  The questions we are asking are: how should it honour our heritage, respect our own values, acknowledge our context, articulate our charitable intent and paint a compelling vision of the future.  We know these can’t be answered satisfactorily by the false dichotomy posed by “social housing or market housing?”
.  
Let’s all stop pretending that it can and move towards a positive debate about the essential part for both within any sustainable ‘one nation’ approach to housing in the UK.  

       

Is The Right To Buy A Win-Win?

Why is it that alarm bells start ringing when the phrase win-win is used? Perhaps it’s from a sense of latent cynicism, or perhaps it’s simply that we’re conditioned from birth to accept that something which seems too good to be true, almost certainly is. So what is it that makes me class a workable right to buy scheme for Housing Associations in the same category as perpetual motion machines? Namely, as something to be pursued and desired, but not the sort of thing that you should be holding your breath for. In my opinion it's because a more accurate description for this particular win-win would a win-win-huh? situation - and that's far less catchy.

Launch of the original Right To Buy scheme - Source

From a tenant's point of view I can easily see why the idea of the right to buy scheme being extended to Housing Association properties would constitute a win. After all exercising your right to buy can be the equivalent of being given a discount on the property value of tens of thousands of pounds – anywhere up to £50,000, and it’s money from the Government! That sort of thing doesn’t happen every day. This in part explains why more than two million people have exercised their right to buy since Margaret Thatcher introduced the scheme in in 1980.

Equally, I can understand that potential tenants – those people currently living only on waiting lists – are keen observers of a scheme that promises a one-to-one re-provision of housing. They are anticipating an impending flood of new homes becoming available. We know that not everyone who bought their council house found it led to lasting prosperity and others found it became a millstone around their necks, but on the whole it’s been well documented that there are a legion of benefits to home ownership – from lower crime rates, increased educational attainment and greater community involvement.

From a governmental point of view extending and re-invigorating the right to buy scheme is a potential panacea for their housing ills. The idea of direct private ownership rather than relying on the Government fits with the Cameron government's ideology. Ministers can explain that they are empowering a generation of tenants, whilst simultaneously creating new homes that other tenants can fill. Best of all the record books will show that they’ve been building houses and as a nice side-effect the gradual churn of development creates jobs.

So what about Housing Associations? As the barman said to the horse – why the long face? Well, it’s all to do with the BODs: the Boring Old Details. While we can see the win-win in the offing and hear the perpetual motion machine starting to hum*, we are still left with a significant amount of “huh?” to deal with. Could someone supply us with the BODs of how we can achieve a one-for-one re-provision and make the figures work? Would someone be so kind as to tweet me the BODs on how we are to stay true to our promise to treat all tenants – past, present and future – fairly, whilst potentially offering something to current tenants that we denied to previous residents and can't promise to future ones? With the BODs in hand I could dispell the huh and evaluate the likelihood of us actually being able to make this win-win come into existence.

Believe me, there is no shortage of support within housing for innovation, for original thinking, for daring new schemes. We work on the front line of supply, so we know how badly the nation needs some bold thinking to address the housing crisis. That said what we must try and avoid are a slew of will-o’-the-wisp ideas emanating from Whitehall. These enchanting prospects draw us all in, away from more solid footing and as our hands close around the shape it disapparates, leaving us far from the path with nothing to show for our efforts – and in that sort of situation, no one wins.

*or crackle, or fizz, or whatever noises a perpetual motion machine might make.