The Tory plan to extend right-to-buy to housing associations combines Thatcherite economics and Soviet-style confiscation

Helping people to own their own home! Well, a few people. At least a couple. For definite. Image: Getty.

Here we go again. For months – years – I've been noisily arguing that the thing we most need to do if we're going to end the housing crisis, the single non-negotiable element of any solution, is to build more bloody houses.

Yet here comes the Tory manifesto, with its headline pledge to privatise more of what little social housing we still have left. You know, in my darker moments, I sometimes think that nobody in the upper echelons of the Conservative party is listening to me at all.

The plan would see England's 1.3m housing association tenants given the right to buy their own home on a similar basis as council tenants, at an enormous discount (up to £103,900 in London, up to £77,900 elsewhere). If you happen to be one of those tenants then this is obviously fantastic news.

But it's a terrible policy nonetheless. For one thing, housing associations (HAs) are charities, and while the government could force them to sell their homes at a discount, it still amounts to privatising stuff the state doesn't own in the first place. This policy is a bizarre combination of Thatcherite economics and Soviet-style confiscation.


For another thing, HAs as a class are probably the bodies most enthusiastic about the idea of building large numbers of new properties. It is not exactly clear how forcing them to sell their existing homes at a hefty discount will make this more likely to happen.

The Tories claim this won’t be a problem, because they have a plan to fund the gap: it involves selling off council homes in expensive areas, when they become vacant. Three thoughts about this present themselves:

1)   We’re losing two social homes for every right-to-buy tenant, not one, so that’s just great;

2)   Waiting lists, already long, will become visible from space;

3)   Social housing in expensive areas will, over time, cease to exist altogether, so the policy comes with a side order of social cleansing, too.

Just to be clear: this idea is awful.

So, it’s a bad policy. But what of the politics?

Those 1.3m HA tenants will probably be quite pleased with their free bung (most of us would be if the government chucked us £100,000). The Tories’ thinking is presumably that enough of them live in marginal constituencies for it to help swing a few seats.

But HA tenants are actually pretty well housed already: their rents are low, their rights are secure.

Another, rather larger, group suffers from high rents and no rights whatsoever. There are an estimated 10m people in private rented sector, and perhaps another couple of million young people living at home with their parents. The Tories have steadfastly refused to do anything for them. They’re not doing anything (longer tenancies, rent control) that might make renting a less soul-sucking experience. And they’re absolutely not planning to build enough houses to meet pent-up demand.

In other words there are roughly 1.3m voters who'll benefit from this bung, but perhaps ten times that number who are going to be understandably miffed that they’re not getting it.

These people, if they are rational economic actors, will desert the Tory party en masse.

The whole thing speaks of a kamikaze short termism at work in the Conservative party. Homeowners are disproportionately likely to vote Tory: that was the insight that led to the creation of right to buy in the first place, and whatever else that policy got wrong, that political instinct was sound.

And yet the party is doing none of the things it needs to do if it actually wants to arrest the long-term decline in the number of homeowners in Britain. It isn't making housing more affordable. It isn't making sure there's enough to go round. It's simply flinging a few crumbs down from the table, in the hope it'll win them just enough votes to keep Ed Miliband out of Downing Street.

It might work in 2015. But what happens in, say, 2025, when policies such as this mean that less than half the electorate owns their own home? How strong will the natural party of government be then, do you think?

 
 
 
 

This fun map allows you to see what a nuclear detonation would do to any city on Earth

A 1971 nuclear test at Mururoa atoll. Image: Getty.

In 1984, the BBC broadcast Threads, a documentary-style drama in which a young Sheffield couple rush to get married because of an unplanned pregnancy, but never quite get round to it because half way through the film the Soviets drop a nuclear bomb on Sheffield. Jimmy, we assume, is killed in the blast (he just disappears, never to be seen again); Ruth survives, but dies of old age 10 years later, while still in her early 30s, leaving her daughter to find for herself in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

It’s horrifying. It’s so horrifying I’ve never seen the whole thing, even though it’s an incredibly good film which is freely available online, because I once watched the 10 minutes from the middle of the film which show the bomb actually going off and it genuinely gave me nightmares for a month.

In my mind, I suppose, I’d always imagined that being nuked would be a reasonably clean way to go – a bright light, a rushing noise and then whatever happened next wasn’t your problem. Threads taught me that maybe I had a rose-tinted view of nuclear holocaust.

Anyway. In the event you’d like to check what a nuke would do to the real Sheffield, the helpful NukeMap website has the answer.

It shows that dropping a bomb of the same size as the one the US used on Hiroshima in 1945 – a relatively diddly 15kt – would probably kill around 76,500 people:

Those within the central yellow and red circles would be likely to die instantly, due to fireball or air pressure. In the green circle, the radiation would kill at least half the population over a period of hours, days or weeks. In the grey, the thing most likely to kill you would be the collapse of your house, thanks to the air blast, while those in the outer, orange circle would most likely to get away with third degree burns.

Other than that, it’d be quite a nice day.

“Little boy”, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was tiny, by the standards of the bombs out there in the world today, of course – but don’t worry, because NukeMap lets you try bigger bombs on for size, too.

The largest bomb in the US arsenal at present is the B-83 which, weighing in at 1.2Mt, is about 80 times the size of Little Boy. Detonate that, and the map has to zoom out, quite a lot.

That’s an estimated 303,000 dead, around a quarter of the population of South Yorkshire. Another 400,000 are injured.

The biggest bomb of all in this fictional arsenal is the USSRS’s 100Mt Tsar Bomba, which was designed but never tested. (The smaller 50MT variety was tested in 1951.) Here’s what that would do:

Around 1.5m dead; 4.7m injured. Bloody hell.

We don’t have to stick to Sheffield, of course. Here’s what the same bomb would do to London:

(Near universal fatalities in zones 1 & 2. Widespread death as far as St Albans and Sevenoaks. Third degree burns in Brighton and Milton Keynes. Over 5.9m dead; another 6m injured.)

Everyone in this orange circle is definitely dead.

Or New York:

(More than 8m dead; another 6.7m injured. Fatalities effectively universal in Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg, and Hoboken.)

Or, since it’s the biggest city in the world, Tokyo:

(Nearly 14m dead. Another 14.5m injured. By way of comparison, the estimated death toll of the Hiroshima bombing was somewhere between 90,000 and 146,000.)

I’m going to stop there. But if you’re feeling morbid, you can drop a bomb of any size on any area of earth, just to see what happens.


And whatever you do though: do not watch Threads. Just trust me on this.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.