At a recent hustings meeting between Tim Farron and Norman Lamb I posed a question about their housing policies. Both wanted to build more homes and had ideas on how to achieve this aim. Allowing Housing Associations to borrow against the value of their existing stock to build more homes was the most attractive, and having a premium tax on expensive homes owned by non-resident owners was also a useful addition to the debate on how to finance more building.
However I queried whether the vast majority of voters actually regarded Housing as a priority issue which would convince people to vote for the Liberal Democrats. I suggested that most people in the country (certainly outside London) had somewhere to live with a rent or mortgage payment which was affordable. Housing for most is not actually an issue, while for those who are in a critical position understandably regard it as the number one priority.
The peculiar circumstances of London distort the national figure. Most commentators suggest that people should pay no more than 30% of their net income on housing costs. A BBC Panorama programme in 2013 found that 31% pay unaffordable rent or mortgage costs which were above the 30% level, while in March 2015 the Evening Standard reported that "Rent takes up more than half of pre-tax income in 13 of the capital’s 32 boroughs. Even in the two most affordable areas — Bexley and Bromley — renters spend almost a third of their income on their home. The figures are before tax is deducted, meaning Londoners are spending significantly more than half of their take-home pay on rent."
So while there is a case for housing to be an issue for politicians generally, the cost of housing is mostly critical in London and the south east, where demands outstrips supply.
There is also an important demographic to be taken into account when considering the relative priority of housing as an issue.
The Office for National Statistics reported in 2013 (based on 2011 Census data) the nature of tenure compared to the age of "Household Reference Persons" (formerly called heads of households). This crucially demonstrated that the majority of HRPs in the two younger age-groups - 16-24 and 25-34 - headed up rented households (87% and 60% respectively) while all older age groups showed a majority owning their own home.
That is the problem. For any party to get traction in electoral terms on housing issues has to convince the younger age groups, who are suffering the most from unaffordable housing, to actually vote. And that starts with getting them registered to vote in the first place. The younger you are the more likely you will move from one short term letting to another, and so registering to vote in an area which may only be home for a year or two is not a priority.
Those in the post-35 age groups who are more likely to own a property, and having enjoyed the benefits of low mortgage rates for some time, may not be attracted to vote for a party which thinks housing is the big priority when other matters like education, health, or immigration are more important to them personally.
So when I put my question to the leadership contenders, I asked them how they would inspire those who had no personal housing issue to vote for a party that made it a priority. Tim Farron did not accept the premise of the question, because he thought everyone would know someone who had a problem, while Norman agreed and set out, as did Tim, a range of interesting ideas on how to improve housing supply.
I know there are a lot of people who do not vote purely out of self interest. But I think the majority do. Under a fair voting system a combination of Tory and UKIP voters could create a majority in the House of Commons, and these people I would suggest are not motivated by altruism.
For example, Labour sought to garner votes in the General Election on issues such as zero hours contracts. Only 1.5% of employees are engaged on zero hours contracts and half of this proportion are happy with them. While they are intrinsically bad for employment stability, Labour's campaign to attract votes to end them hardly helped their campaign, because the vast majority of voters were not personally affected.
So while I support the kind of thinking our two leadership candidates displayed at the hustings recently, they need to consider where the true priorities are in the hearts of voters. They need to develop a narrative which chimes with where the majority are, and not where they think all good-thinking people ought to be.
