ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS LABOUR HOUSING FACILITIES SINCE 1997
INTRODUCTION
This is a report outlining the different arguments for and in opposition to the Labour Housing Policies since 1997. The topic will be presented as follows: 1. a background of the New Labour Policy; 2. the arguments in connection with the development of the New Labour Housing Policy since 1997. This paper will also provide illustration that would best illustrate the arguments. The graphics may be the own creation of the author or come from the references. A conclusion will end the report, evaluating the arguments and presenting the side taken by the author.
BACKGROUND
According to Stewart (2005), the current political system seeks to promote a sustainable ‘social contract’ between citizens and the State, public, private and voluntary organizations in delivering community-based changed.
According to Wells (2004), ‘what counts is what works’ and ‘what works and why’ have been the important elements of the New Labour approach to government and in particular to the implementation of large social and economic development programmes. The New Labour, since the time it has been branded as the New Labour, the ways to modernization was its main concern.
Several problems of disrepair and the need for extensive improvement and modernization. According to Cowan and Marsh (n.d.), an early move for the government was to make available £800 million in capital receipts for re-investment in the council stock over the period of 1997-99. This was followed by an increase in planned spending for housing for the period 1999-2002 £3.9 billion.
ARGUMENTS
There are number of people in the United Kingdom that has been putting emphasis on the policies of the New Labour. There are those who claims that the there was no improvement as to the way the government has been answering to the call of new housing policy. However there are those who would affirm to the current housing policies. Nevertheless, the need to amend or revise the housing policy has been the subject matter for the majority of authorities.
According to Conway, that there is an inherent tension in housing policy between long-term and short-term objectives. The housing stock is fixed asset lasting decades and often centuries. Housing investment depends upon a high level of capital expenditure with a commitment from public and private expenditure. Housing policy is focused on the development of the public sector, catering for those who needed assistance to obtain a decent home. This is derived from the belief that the public sector would break the link between low income and poor housing.
The housing stock is considered as fixed asset because of the need of the people to have a house, thus the government implements policies in order to meet the demand of its constituents. The tremendous housing demand in the United Kingdom is due to its housing policy and on how it is done. A property owner would make his property available for occupation or renting, several aspiring tenants would line up and the clamor for houses will make the price of the rented house go up (see illustration after this paragraph). This is due to the fact in the law of supply and demand, increase in demand and decrease in supply, increases the amount. There was a clamor to the housing which are available for rent because of there are series of report that there has been a shortage for housing for the poor and because of long-tern tenure of the occupants with the rented house. The illustration provides an overview on how the above-mentioned factors are a cycle in pulling up the price of the house. Thus, it can be inferred that the New Labour Housing Policy is not that good in enforcing its policy as the housing facilities has a poor grade on its development.
EXPLANATION: The price P of the housing product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply S) and the desire of the people purchasing power at each price (demand D). This graph depicts that an increase in demand from D1 to D2 along with the consequent price increase and quantity rented of the houses.
According to Mc Lennan (1995), once a price was triggered, United Kingdom house prices tended to accelerate for a year or two with a frenzy of purchase and trading activity. Prices peaked as interest rate increases induced mortgage rationing and as deposits fell because mortgage rates were sticky.
According to the Monetary Policy in 2004, it was identified that the lack of supply as a major cause of high house prices and concluded that between 70,000 and 120,000 additional private sector properties are requires annually. What is needed is the right mix of housing, meaning more social and affordable properties, to allow those who think that owning their own home is just a dream, to make it a reality. Thus, it can be inferred that the policy of the New Labour has never met the demands of the public as regards to its housing facilities. t is a proof to the fact that the New Labour policy may be that intensive but it lack proper implementation.
According to Smith and Griffiths, (1997), the policy objectives of the housing policy may be easy to construct but it is much more difficult to actually achieve them. In practice, some of the objectives may with one another. For example, an effort to create or maintain communities may not coincide with an effort to allocate rehousing based on priority needs, because priority of its constituents has been changing from time to time and majority of the constituents has been turning into a working-class group. Thus, maintaining communities may not be able to be accomplished because of the differences of the priority needs of the member of the society. The government must be able to see it that its goal to achieve has applicability into the real essence of the policy.
In 2006 the government’s own publication Housing Statisitcs has reported that two hundred and thirty houses (239) council houses was built, which a sign of a big rise from the one hundred ninety two (192) council houses built in 2001-2002. From this point of view, it can be inferred that the government may have been accomplishing its goal. However, such accomplishment is not that significant to the growing demands of the society. The council houses may have been expanded by the government but it was not enough to answer the increase on the need of the people to be sheltered.
According to Chartist (2007), the government’s mistake has been to focus on short-term interventions rather than long term investment – and their interventions have been primarily about assisting certain types of key workers, mainly teachers and NHS staff to access the market by giving them interest free loans or grants, rather than actually increasing supply. These interventions have further inflated market prices, assisting some key workers to leapfrog over other. Several authorities have also pointed out the said government mistake. Such mistake is attributed to the fact that the government has not primarily giving much priority to its housing policy thus; its implementation is not treated to be responsive to the actual need of the society. The focus on the short-term interventions, as perceived by this author, may provide solution to the present problem of the housing aspect of the country however, it is not as productive for the future. The government must likewise study on the factors that will be attributed to future problems of the housing program of the government. The government must see to is that it is preprared on answering the current and future housing problems.
CONCLUSION
The aforementioned arguments posed by the author came from several numbers of authorities. As the author researched on these arguments it has found out that majority of the people does not approve of the development of the implementation of the housing policy. Ironic, to say, that the United Kingdom as perceived by other states to be one of the progressive in term of economy but lacks focus into one of the main factor that has been affecting its economy.
As mentioned, the housing projects of the government plays a vital role into the economy because of the number of profit that it may gain thru the allocation of such houses to its constituents. However, because of its poor implementation of its housing polices there has been no positive to its economy. The only effect is that because the housing units are not enough to meet the demands of the people because of insufficient supply of houses then the price will go up.
The author highly suggests that the government must refurbish its objectives with regard to its housing policy. It must also have an strict implementation of its housing policies so that goals will be met effectively.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Conway, J., 2000, Housing Policy, Gildredge, Eastbourne, England.
Cowan D., & Marsh, A., Two Steps Forward: Housing Policy Into the New Millennium, The Policy Press, United Kingdom.
Mc Lennan, D,. 1995, Housing to 2001: Can Britain Do Better?, Housing Policy Debate.
Stewart, J. 2005, A Review of UK Housing Policy: ideology and Public Health, School of Health and Social Care, United Kingdom.
Wells P., 2004, New Labour and Evidence Based Policy Making, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, United Kingdom.
ELECTRONIC RESOURCES:
Labor’s housing policy failure; Monetary Policy Committee; viewed once; available at <http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=93376>, 13/05/08.
Doing Mrs. Thatcher proud; Chartist; viewed once; available at <http://www.chartist.org.uk/articles/britpol/may05bowie.htm>, 14/05/08.
0 comments:
Post a Comment