What's Wrong With Housing ?
Housing presents an issue which every politician regards as fair game. Consequently a vast and intricate industrial process is dis- cussed almost exclusively in terms of the finished product. It is considered easier to bid for the votes of the homeless than to under- stand the practical business of building homes. It probably is easier, but it is less useful. The case of London has recently shown how the question is bedevilled by ulterior political motives. The issue of the release of requisitioned premises was raised by the Communist- led squatters. Mr. Bevan, discussing the matter with the London Trades Council, was not content with giving the facts of the situation, but went on to single out three boroughs, not possessing Socialist majorities, for special blame. Representatives of these boroughs replied in letters to The Times. The process has endless possibiliti but they have very little to do with the building of houses. Since the technical side of housebuilding is likely to remain a closed book to most politicians, they might usefully concern themselves with the basic defects of organisation. Responsibility for overall planning has never been properly allocated between the Government Depart- ments concerned. The failure to organise the provision of materials becomes more and more plain as one item after another (the latest one is paint) runs short. Mr. Bevan must know all this. Con- sequently he must know that most of his speeches about "targets" —a vague term which glosses over the fundamental distinction between objective, programme and forecast—is just misleading talk. A building programme exists and the much publicised attempt to put roofs on incompleted houses by Christmas, is only a part of it. The programme exists and is not published. And the reason for the suppression is not practical but political.
Previous page
