Long term decision making is needed in politics to deliver for the country - Andy Brown

It is all too easy for politicians to get distracted by the day to day challenges that they face and to struggle to find time to think about the best long term interests of the country. Yet decisions that are made because of long term consequences are normally much better than ones driven by temporary crisis management.

There are, of course, plenty of immediate problems to manage at the moment. Pressures that we are all facing in paying for the increased cost of living, serious worries about how to maintain successful public services like health, care or education and risks generated by a major war taking place within Europe are all too real and urgent.

Yet short term policies designed to take the sting out of horrible problems like inflation rarely work and can end up wasting a lot of money that could have been devoted to genuine long term improvements.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

One classic example of this is governments trying to help first time buyers by subsidising right to buy schemes. It must be very tempting to step in and try and help those starting out on the housing ladder to build up the deposit they need. It is, however, far from clear that such policies actually achieve their aim.

'The government’s own figures say that it “invested” £10bn to help 135,000 people via just one of its Help to Buy schemes'. PIC: Andrew Matthews/PA Wire'The government’s own figures say that it “invested” £10bn to help 135,000 people via just one of its Help to Buy schemes'. PIC: Andrew Matthews/PA Wire
'The government’s own figures say that it “invested” £10bn to help 135,000 people via just one of its Help to Buy schemes'. PIC: Andrew Matthews/PA Wire

The government’s own figures say that it “invested” £10bn to help 135,000 people via just one of its Help to Buy schemes. Yet this money has a strong tendency to increase demand and is then simply swallowed up by house prices that are higher than they otherwise would be. Effectively the government wastes public money on subsidising house prices and the only people who gain are building developers and existing home owners. A well-intended policy ends up costing a lot of money to distort markets. It looks helpful to those who receive the money but it actually does more harm than good.

If the government tries to do something similar to take the edge off the increased cost of mortgages things could go even more badly wrong. It is better to pursue responsible economic policies that don’t push up interest rates than for a government to try and subsidise its way out of the consequences. There simply isn’t enough cash for the government to start paying part of people’s mortgages. There is a real risk that any support the government offered would be drowned out by the scale of the pressures people are facing and little prospect that the country would achieve anything of long term value in return for a huge cost.

Which makes any measure which stands a chance of both reducing household or business costs all the more important. Investment in ways of cutting bills is much wiser than a straight subsidy.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Virtually all investments in modern green technology pass that test and hit the sweet spot where up front investment results in reduced running costs and environmental benefits. What is even better is that they don’t just do that on the individual project where they are made. Whenever a home is better insulated or a company switches to using electric vehicles it cuts the overall demand for fuel and as any economist will tell you reduced demand means reduced prices. Every school roof that is fitted with solar panels helps that school's finances whilst reducing demand for fuel and thus its price. Reducing dependence on imports brings significant benefits to the country both financially and in terms of security of supply. It helps Britain enormously if we spend less on buying oil and gas and it harms people like Vladimir Putin.

Some of the necessary investments can produce benefits in relatively short timescales which is particularly true of measures like helping households and businesses to improve insulation. Other plans will take a lot longer but are the only realistic way of making a big impact.

There is no getting away from the fact that building enough good quality social housing to meet the needs of all those who want a home will take a long time. Yet it is one of the few things that will make serious inroads into the problems of the housing market. Markets left to their own devices are unlikely to build enough specialist homes for the growing numbers of older people and they won’t revive run down inner city areas without significant government help and guidance.

For over 40 years this country has been selling off council houses without using the money to build replacements. Anyone who has tried to find good quality rental property at a reasonable price is now suffering the consequences. There is a near total absence of local authority housing in many of the parts of the country where it is most needed. It might take another forty years to repair the damage but much good practical help can be achieved quite quickly in ways that will reduce inflationary pressures. If local authorities can be confident that their housing stock won’t be sold off at below cost then they can borrow to build and they could use the new properties to offer nurses, teachers and care workers the chance to live cheaply in the local community thus improving services for everyone.

What is required is a fresh attitude by the government both nationally and locally.

Andy Brown is the North Yorkshire Councillor for Aire Valley.