Housing needs will be pushed to one side in the confusion over Brexit
|
Version 0 of 1. As results of the EU referendum unfolded, the areas that had voted to leave caught my eye. Not for the numbers returned – but because I’d visited so many of them in recent years, notebook in hand, writing about poverty. Coastal towns, former steel and mining areas, now desolate villages stacked with rows of small family homes, almost entirely jobless. The coastal towns in particular, including once-popular holiday destinations Blackpool, Torbay and Tendring, are now suffering extreme poverty and their own housing crisis, with far more people in private rented accommodation claiming housing benefit than those in social housing. In housing terms, two claims jumped out for me during the campaign. The argument that house prices would fall if the country exited the EU presumed that all voters would consider this a terrible occurrence: not everyone is a home-owner, and many people, myself included, believe some correction to the market is both necessary and desirable. But the old tabloid adage that because of immigration people struggle to find or afford housing, as well as to get a GP appointment, seemed to be foremost in many people’s minds. If there are more people sleeping on the street in your area, that’s because of cuts – to the public sector, to housing departments, to homelessness shelters and services. If you struggle to get a medical appointment that’s because the NHS is stretched to the limit thanks to “restructuring”, not because of EU migration. The areas most likely to benefit from EU structural funding voted predominantly to leave: Wales, Cornwall and the post-industrial north have seen millions of pounds of investment targeted in the most deprived wards and towns. The argument that EU membership costs more than the amount injected into areas of high deprivation only rings true if you believe the Conservatives would happily spend money on Rotherham rather than a Tory safe seat. Nigel Farage hasn’t even had time for a post-result nap, yet is already disowning the Leave campaign claim, emblazoned on buses and billboards, that the purported £350m a week spent on EU membership will be spent instead on the NHS. With the poorest councils already suffering disproportionate cuts, and the pound collapsing, we may well have driven our economy into a wall – and as in 2008, the poorest will suffer. So what happens now? Britain withdraws and becomes more insular in outlook. With 12% of those working in construction migrants from the EU and with the construction industry already struggling to keep up with demand, any drop in skilled migrants will hit Britain’s ability to build. As the pound tanked to a level not seen since 1985, private developers saw their share prices hit: worrying given the focus on private rather than social building in recent budgets. Britain is now in freefall, with the prime minister having resigned, a shock withdrawal from the European Union, and nothing certain aside from the fact the coming months will yield endless negotiations on the exit, and the coronation of a new Tory leader. Meanwhile, housing will be pushed to one side in terms of political attention. Those who voted to “take back control” may find increasingly there’s very little to control in their lives. Analysts are already predicting a drop in supply of new homes, due to market volatility, predicted slowdown on skilled migration flows and share price drops for developers. At this stage, it seems unlikely that the government’s target of one million new homes built by 2020 will materialise, putting further strain on the UK’s housing system – the needs of people outside of the south east, where empty homes are a problem, as is affording rent, are likely to fall by the wayside in the pursuit of easy profit from house-building. In 1981, Margaret Thatcher was encouraged to evacuate Merseyside, believing the area to be beyond saving: EU funding played a huge part in the slow regeneration of Liverpool. Visiting the centre now, it is transformed: there are still problems in Toxteth and the north of the city, but the improvement has been vast. A Britain that goes it alone, especially under the Conservatives, is far less likely to invest in areas where council funding has already been cut and that means that when it comes to housing, health and public services, those towns voting Brexit may well find the idea to cut areas of high deprivation loose is floated again. Join the Guardian Housing Network to read more pieces like this. Follow us on Twitter (@GuardianHousing) and like us on Facebook to keep up with the latest social housing news and views. |