“One in seven seats could be decided by renters”: so why aren’t parties fighting for their votes?

Vote, you fools! Image: Getty.

The director of Generation Rent on how renters should know their own strength.

Last week, I was sifting through old emails from a letting agent to find out exactly how much their surprise moving out fee was, so I could include it in my personal response to the government’s consultation on banning letting fees. (No, just one response from Generation Rent wasn’t enough for me.)

One of the threads I unearthed was a negotiation about the rent increase that year. They capitulated to my flatmate’s offer, reasoning, “Well, you have been good tenants,” then throwing in a backhanded, “for the most part”. This was slightly surprising because I think we had been pretty amazing tenants. But then I realised that, if you’re a lazy letting agent, you probably don’t consider tenants who make frequent but reasonable requests about disrepair in their home to be particularly good.

The Conservatives have played on this subjective definition of “good tenants” in their manifesto, promising them greater security of tenure. By specifying “good”, they appeal to renters who will unanimously consider themselves good, and to landlords who might be frightened by the prospect of rewarding “bad” tenants.

There are few clues to what this policy will entail – but it’s one of several new housing offers that the parties have added to their arsenals for this round of voting. Labour is promising discounted homes to buy and more council homes, the Lib Dems favour a rent-to-buy model, while the Greens want to trial a Land Value Tax.

For voters who simply want some respite from stiflingly high rents this might not set the pulse racing. But it’s fair to say each party has made a significant shift in appealing to renters – and anyone who wants a fairer housing market – since 2015, when their manifestos were pathetic by comparison.

Private renters, now 20 per cent of the population, are constantly lectured by pundits that we won’t be listened to until we start voting in greater numbers. I’m pleased to report that we are. Based on numbers from the Electoral Commission, English Housing Survey and Ipsos Mori, we estimate that 617,000 more private renters voted in 2015 than in 2010 – a larger increase than among homeowners.

This is the result of the rise in house prices that means many people are stuck renting. The increase in absolute numbers comes despite low and falling turnout rates among renters (51 per cent in 2015); by contrast, they’re high and rising among home owners (77 per cent).

The private renter population is so big now that 93 seats in the UK – one in seven – could be decided by their votes. These are seats where there are more renters who don’t feel loyal to one party (an estimated 30 per cent) than the incumbent party’s majority. They include marginals where there are a few dozen votes in it, but also relatively safe seats like Amber Rudd’s Hastings & Rye and the Labour-held Luton South.

A successful pitch to renters by one of the major parties could see the Tories take 30 seats from Labour, or 29 seats go the other way.

Constituencies where renters could decide the winner, coloured by the pary that currently holds them. Click to expand.

We based this analysis on data from the 2011 census. The private renter population has since grown by 25 per cent since, so there are likely to be many more constituencies where the renter vote will be a factor.

Given the prize on offer, the parties should be doing much more to win renters’ votes. Although politicians acknowledge the enormous shift taking place in home ownership, at this rate we’ll have our dysfunctional housing market for at least another 10 years.

Unfortunately, renters can’t simply wait until they dominate the polling booth to see any fundamental change. Benefit cuts mean many are sinking deeper into debt; others have their lives and families on hold until they raise a deposit to buy a home.

Change is also held back because the very act of voting is more difficult for renters. Thanks to the ability of landlords to use “no-fault” evictions and raise rent to unaffordable levels, renters are six times more likely to move home in a given year than homeowners. They are therefore more likely to find themselves unregistered when an election comes around. It doesn’t help that the government has stopped their annual mass nudging of people to register.


So it is up to the likes of Generation Rent, ACORN and other local renter groups to help people register to vote, provide information about parties’ housing policies, and to organise private renters so they can start punching their weight in the political arena. It’s already starting to work – all UK-wide parties except UKIP are committed to banning letting agent fees.

But until we have a government that will bring rents down significantly, renters will just have to rely on the negotiating gambit from my erstwhile flatmate. “While the market rent may be £380 a week, the landlord is unlikely to find a tenant willing to pay that without extensive refurbishment, improvements to the kitchen and a new sofa – so he’d be better off keeping us here on £340.”

Dan Wilson Craw is interim director of Generation Rent.

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

 
 
 
 

Seven climate change myths put about by big oil companies

Oil is good for you! Image: Getty.

Since the start of this year, major players within the fossil fuel industry – “big oil” – have made some big announcements regarding climate change. BP revealed plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by acquiring additional renewable energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell defended its $1-$2bn green energy annual budget. Even ExxonMobil, until recently relatively dismissive of the basic science behind climate change, included a section dedicated to reducing emissions in its yearly outlook for energy report.

But this idea of a “green” oil company producing “clean” fossil fuels is one that I would call a dangerous myth. Such myths obscure the irreconcilability between burning fossil fuels and environmental protection – yet they continue to be perpetuated to the detriment of our planet.

Myth 1: Climate change can be solved with the same thinking that created it

Measures put in place now to address climate change must be sustainable in the long run. A hasty, sticking plaster approach based on quick fixes and repurposed ideas will not suffice.

Yet this is precisely what some fossil fuel companies intend to do. To address climate change, major oil and gas companies are mostly doing what they have historically excelled at – more technology, more efficiency, and producing more fossil fuels.

But like the irresponsible gambler that cannot stop doubling down during a losing streak, the industry’s bet on more, more, more only means more ecological destruction. Irrespective of how efficient fossil fuel production becomes, that the industry’s core product can be 100 per cent environmentally sustainable is an illusion.

A potential glimmer of hope is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process that sucks carbon out of the air and sends it back underground. But despite being praised by big oil as a silver bullet solution for climate change, CCS is yet another sticking plaster approach. Even CCS advocates suggest that it cannot currently be employed on a global, mass scale.

Myth 2: Climate change won’t spell the end of the fossil fuel industry

According to a recent report, climate change is one factor among several that has resulted in the end of big oil’s golden years – a time when oil was plenty, money quick, and the men at the top celebrated as cowboy capitalists.

Now, to ensure we do not surpass the dangerous 2°C threshold, we must realise that there is simply no place for “producers” of fossil fuels. After all, as scientists, financial experts, and activists have warned, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, the proven reserves of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies cannot be consumed.

Myth 3: Renewables investment means oil companies are seriously tackling climate change

Compared to overall capital expenditures, oil companies renewables’ investment is a miniscule drop in the barrel. Even then, as companies such as BP have demonstrated before, they will divest from renewables as soon as market conditions change.

Big oil companies’ green investments only produce tiny reductions in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. BP calls these effects “real sustainable reductions” – but they accounted for only 0.3 per cent of their total emissions reductions in 2016, 0.1 per cent in 2015, 0.1 per cent in 2014, and so on.


Myth 4: Hard climate regulation is not an option

One of the oil industry’s biggest fears regarding climate change is regulation. It is of such importance that BP recently hinted at big oil’s exodus from the EU if climate regulation took effect. Let’s be clear, we are talking about “command-and-control” regulation here, such as pollution limits, and not business-friendly tools such as carbon pricing or market-based quota systems.

There are many commercial reasons why the fossil fuel industry would prefer the latter over the former. Notably, regulation may result in a direct impact on the bottom line of fossil fuel companies given incurred costs. But climate regulation is – in combination with market-based mechanisms – required to address climate change. This is a widely accepted proposition advocated by mainstream economists, NGOs and most governments.

Myth 5: Without cheap fossil fuels, the developing world will stop

Total’s ex-CEO, the late Christoph de Margerie, once remarked: “Without access to energy, there is no development.” Although this is probably true, that this energy must come from fossil fuels is not. Consider, for example, how for 300 days last year Costa Rica relied entirely on renewable energy for its electricity needs. Even China, the world’s biggest polluter, is simultaneously the biggest investor in domestic renewables projects.

As the World Bank has highlighted, in contrast to big oil’s claims about producing more fossil fuels to end poverty, the sad truth is that by burning even the current fossil fuel stockpile, climate change will place millions of people back into poverty. The UN concurs, signalling that climate change will result in reduced crop yields, more waterborne diseases, higher food prices and greater civil unrest in developing parts of the world.

Myth 6: Big oil must be involved in climate policy-making

Fossil fuel companies insist that their involvement in climate policy-making is necessary, so much so that they have become part of the wallpaper at international environmental conferences. This neglects that fossil fuels are, in fact, a pretty large part of the problem. Big oil attends international environmental conferences for two reasons: lobbying and self-promotion.

Some UN organisations already recognise the risk of corporations hijacking the policy-making process. The World Health Organisation, for instance, forbids the tobacco industry from attending its conferences. The UN’s climate change arm, the UNFCCC, should take note.

Myth 7: Nature can and must be “tamed” to address climate change

If you mess with mother nature, she bites back. As scientists reiterate, natural systems are complex, unpredictable, and even hostile when disrupted.

Climate change is a prime example. Small changes in the chemical makeup of the atmosphere may have drastic implications for Earth’s inhabitants.

The ConversationFossil fuel companies reject that natural systems are fragile – as evidenced by their expansive operations in ecologically vulnerable areas such as the Arctic. The “wild” aspect of nature is considered something to be controlled and dominated. This myth merely serves as a way to boost egos. As independent scientist James Lovelock wrote, “The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”

George Ferns, Lecturer in Management, Employment and Organisation, Cardiff University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.