Steve Richards: It will take real courage to solve our housing crisis (which is why it is so rarely discussed)

When political leaders proclaim boldness or their capacity to take tough decisions I look for the small print. What are they saying that bravely risks short-term unpopularity for the longer-term interests of the country?

When Tony Blair stresses the need for a bold future agenda he highlights further public service reform, such as more vocational education, international terrorism and fresh economic challenges. Ask David Cameron about the underlying causes of gun crime and he proclaims the importance of the family.

Both leaders omit a policy area of central importance, one that touches on everything from the causes of crime to the quality of life for the youthful aspirant middle classes, an elusive section of the electorate that party leaders are desperate to woo. It is the subject that nearly everyone talks about and has done for more than two decades. Yet politically, the theme is nightmarishly complex to the point where it is addressed in near silence by the supposedly politically courageous.

Proclamations about "family" or the threat posed by terrorism are relatively safe political themes. They are complex and contentious, but do not involve immediate policy pronouncements that have the potential to rouse the fury of the nation. In contrast, Britain's housing crisis will be solved only by genuine political courage, which is why it is so little talked about at a national political level. Indeed the decisions required in relation to housing make the seething problems whirling around Britain's transport system seem like a gentle midsummer breeze.

The high cost of housing in parts of the country combined with the lack of decent affordable accommodation form a wave that causes havoc across the political landscape, leaving its mark virtually everywhere.

The Labour MP and deputy leadership candidate, Jon Cruddas, claims that in his east London constituency and well beyond, the rise of the BNP can be linked directly to housing. Cruddas tells me in his constituency alone over 10,000 families are seeking affordable rented accommodation and calculates that across London the figure is close to 300,000. He has been travelling around the country as part of his campaign for the deputy leadership and concludes that this is not by any means a London issue alone. Across the country housing is the subject that comes up more than any other.

Cruddas focuses on affordable rented housing, but the shortage extends across the board. Recent figures show that 160,000 homes were built last year, well short of the number the Government calculates are needed every year to keep up with the growth in the number of households. The gap propels prices upwards. So do other factors such as the comically high city bonuses and the continuing fashion for second homes, pricing locals in places such as Cornwall and Devon out of the market. The private rented market soars in line with the cost of housing.

As a result the public services struggle to recruit. Try living as a young teacher or nurse in parts of London or indeed Cornwall, York and Norfolk. The pay is not bad these days, but the house prices make the cost of living an almost impossible nightmare. The high level of student debt deepens the problem, an underestimated new factor. Students leave universities with thousands of pounds of debt, at which point they face Britain's deranged housing market.

The Government's response is characteristically erratic, occasionally courageous and innovative, sometimes cautiously defensive to the point of being useless. Today the Communities Secretary, Ruth Kelly, publishes an important report on the condition and purpose of council estates by Professor John Hill. Currently three quarters of tenants claim benefit and never leave their estates, a costly arrangement and one that makes it difficult for others to get accommodation. Early indications suggest that the report will be a substantial study. Cruddas describes it as a potentially defining moment for the Government.

But if it merely puts the case for extending ownership for tenants in different forms, on the grounds that this will increase social mobility, the report will avoid the more challenging question of supply. It will be another example of the Government astutely recognising a problem and doing something positive about it that is nowhere near enough.

The Hill report is one of many on housing. Gordon Brown commissioned the Barker report before the last election to examine the wider implications of the housing market. Kate Barker's report is worth revisiting for its clear statement that volatility in the housing market "has exacerbated problems of economic stability and has had an adverse effect on economic growth".

Her broad solution is to deliver "greater affordability for individuals and a lower trend in house prices". Barker's report is on the Treasury website. When headlines suggest a lower trend in house prices is bad news for the Government, we should not forget that such a development is government policy. To a limited extent the Government has followed through on her recommendation to build more homes, but on the whole it has tended to follow its Thatcherite predecessors in its obsession with patterns of ownership rather than the infrastructure.

In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher's favourite cabinet minister, Nicholas Ridley, hailed a "housing revolution". Private landlords would bid to run council homes. Housing Action Trusts would take over run down council estates. In some cases tenants would be able to take control of their estates. A fatal flaw in the revolution was its failure to address the basic problem, a shortage of cheap rented accommodation. It was a housing revolution without any houses. Some tenants became private owners in an escalating housing market, but few additional homes were built for those wanting to rent because they could not afford to buy. The current government has spent a similar amount of energy on encouraging forms of ownership while tiptoeing around the issue of supply.

Last year only a few hundred new council homes were built. In the 1970s, 100,000 a year were constructed. Council housing reminds me of the Woody Allen joke in Annie Hall. Allen tells of a couple in a restaurant. One complains that the food is awful. The other agrees, adding: "And the portions are so small."

Council housing in the 1960s and 1970s was bleak and yet we need bigger portions. Cruddas says that in east London local authorities are desperate to build and have learnt from the mistakes of the past. Ruth Kelly must do more than rearrange the deckchairs in existing council estates. The rest of us must accept that in a crowded island with massive inequality, many more houses must be built.

There are echoes of the debate over road pricing. The Government must take some tough decisions, provoke thoughtless fury, petitions, and then await the long-term gratitude of voters if it succeeds in stabilising a housing market that causes mayhem on too many fronts. Alternatively, it could pretend to be bold.

s.richards@independent.co.uk

More from Steve Richards