POLITICAL COMMENTARY Hugh Macpherson
There is a curiously unfair view of politicians, often heard in pubs and at dinner, which states they are quite incapable of telling the truth. The populace, of course, never hesitate to impose on politicians moral sanctions which they would not dream of applying to themselves, but the truth of the matter is that politicians are more honest than any businessman, plumber, or pop star, for the good and simple reason that they have little choice to be anything else. They are subjected to the closest political scrutiny by newspapers and television, and every golden phrase uttered in Parliament is recorded, for posterity in Hansard. If they are wary about what they say it is because they know that politica) opponents will faithfully record it and reproduce it . to their maximum disadvantage. But there is one inhibition on politicians being absolutely truthful — people simply loathe being told the truth.
This sad fact was vividly illustrated for me some years ago when I was one of the less gifted science masters in Western Europe. The headmaster decided to invite a well-known journalist to present the prizes instead of the usual old military buffer. The journalist, like all his profession, was stridently honest and in his homily told the children that for success in life they required two major qualities, the first of which was the ability to work very, very hard. This drew wintry smiles •from the stern dominies on the platform. Then he added that the second quality was to be very, very greedy.
Politicians face the same problems as the honest journalist. The combination of their wary approach to public statements on controversial subjects, and the inability of the public to face up to unpleasant truths, could well obscure the great value of the housing Bill currently going through Parliament, which not only makes some attempt to bring sanity to rent policy but also presents the electorate with the first of a series of measures which will give them a genuine philosophical choice at the polls. The level of council house rents is often absurd. For example the average council house rent in Scotland in 1970 was only £74.27 a year and in some areas, such as Ayr, sank as low as £44.46. Only the Tory party could tackle such a hot potato — the Labour party is hopelessly compromised electorally in council house areas. Low council rents are, however, only part of the problem, which is why the Bill is not quite radical enough. Since people prefer to operate on the basis of myth rather than fact it is often assumed that all council house tenants are sitting in ab surdly cheaply rented houses with a Jaguar car at the door (it is strange that the myth demands that the vehicle be a Jaguar). The facts are that about 1.5 million out of 5.5 million council houses are receiving general subsidies, much of which comes out of rent pooling schemes. The amount paid in Exchequer rent subsidies, including rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account, is around £222 million. Taking various other subsidies into account it could be said that the total for housing subsidies is around £350 million annually. The amount of tax relief allowed to the five million owner-occupiers buying their own homes last year amounted to some £300 million.
It is a perfectly respectable political argument to, say that, these owner-occupiers deserve. a subildy since they are buying their own homes. What has not been faced in the Bill is the fact that the larger the mortgage and the greater the mortgagee's income then the greater the value of the tax relief. Whenever anyone starts earning a large salary his accountant demands that a large mortgage be taken out. The person who gains least is the little man, who might qualify, for a council house, but who prefers to own a -castle in the suburbs.
The above is the crudest statement of the issues involved, taking no account of the questidn of what constitutes a fair rent in a situation.of scarcity, or whether social mixing is desirable, but politicians are in the unfortunate position of being unable to argue openly about such issues. When Anthony Crosland, in a recent pamphlet, suggested that something should be done to bring the owner-occupier into line with the council house ' tenant (in his case arguing for a state subsidy for all tenants which, of course, is diametrically opposite to the intentions of the present Bill) a shiver ran through the Labour ranks at the thought of the political hostages which were being given to the Conservatives. Equally, although many Labour backbenchers will agree on the sense of subsidising people and not bricks and mortar they dare not say this in their consti' tuencies. Mr Julian Amery summed it up trenchantly enough in Monday's debate. (Mr Amery is usually trenchant. When he opens his mouth his only indecision is as to which foot to put in.) He referred to the motion at the Labour party conference calling for an end to tax relief for mortgagees and asked the opposition "whether theY want to go to Heaven or win the next elec' tion."
What Mr St John-Stevas would make of such a theology heaven, no doubt, knoWs but there are other Tory MPs who want to keep out of Hell and win the next election, For example Mr Geoffrey Finsberg Of Hampstead is faced with an enraged tenants' association in the very flats where he spent his boyhood and where his familY still live. The tenants are particularly dis' tressed at the part of the Bill which permits a landlord in the present situation of scarcity to allow a flat to lie empty until someone is prepared to pay an exorbitant rent. This can then be registered with the Rent Officer as a fair rent, and when the leases come up for renewal for long-stand' ing tenants they could find their rent doubled or trebled to come into line with the registered rent. Mr Finsberg spoke out bravely against such dread practices in the course of the debate but he is now; alas, beginning to see Reds under the be in the work of the association. This is t° be understood. We must not be hyper' critical. For the strength of the association is around 500 homes with more than a thousand votes. And Mr Finsberg's majority at the last election was 474. With all the difficulties inherent in such a Bill — not least among their own suP' porters — the Government have shown the courage of their convictions in bringing lr forward. And despite the anguished cries, from the other side the Labour party no more restore the status quo for councn house tenants than they will completelY repeal the Industrial Relations Bill. The major value of the Bill, despite its defects, is that it goes a long way towards Mr, Heath's intention of offering a radical choice of parties for the electorate. But even in erecting that choice the nevi, structure will provide a solid framework for whichever party comes into office t° apply their own particular philosophY. That is a sign of good legislation (unlike the charade of nationalising and de; nationalising industries). The method subsidy will now be directly between the taxpayer and the tenant and that could he a useful step towards reducing the number of civil servants involved in means-testinF people (which •is socially abhorrent tr$, everyone). Mr Heath could show a reiv radical streak if he would go over t° abollishing all forms of subsidies excePr through the income tax system. It is the one means test to which we are all sub' jected and the one form of revenue collec' tion that seems inescapable. Why or)! move even further in the direction of usins° the easily adjusted machinery of the tag system to administer subsidies? I imagine this would command the widest support.
Previous page
