It’s the hypocrisy that causes Labour’s class war warriors to come unstuck

It’s always being caught out as hypocrites that does for them, isn’t it?

Envy is such an intoxicating vice that when the Left falls back on populist class war rhetoric, they can usually rely on it resonating. Why do the rich “need” so much money?

How can the Tories, wallowing in luxury, understand the struggles of ordinary people?

Then Ed Miliband is found to have two kitchens, or Diane Abbott sends her son to a private school. Last month, it was the Homelessness Minister evicting tenants to put the rent up £700 a month. Or, in the latest instalment of this long series, the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is discovered to have three homes.

The moral objection to envy isn’t enough – the tenth commandment is easily overlooked. Neither does the argument that seeking to satisfy that envy by demanding the state confiscate the wealth of those more fortunate than ourselves does not end well. Intellectually, it might be understood that there isn’t a fixed amount of wealth, that we have seen quite an impressive amount of wealth creation and other cases where the economy in a country has collapsed. But on an emotional level, the resentments persist. So those exploiting them will get a sympathetic hearing – until they get caught out as frauds.

Housing is one of the more understandable ways for jealousy to be aroused. People imagine it is one example of where the total supply is fixed, as there is not much more room for any more, as we are already an overcrowded island. Not really – only just over one per cent of the UK is actually built on. Seven per cent of the country is classified as “urban” – even there most of the land is green space (parks, sports pitches and so on) or private gardens. But the planning system does impose rationing on housing, and with rationing, the cry goes up: “Fair shares for all!” (Rationing suits the socialist mentality. After the war, the Labour Government not only retained food rationing but made it stricter.

The housing shortage affects the debate on immigration, of course. The objection is made that even if the immigrants allowed in are English-speaking, law-abiding, hard-working and highly skilled, they will still want to be housed. We don’t object that they will cause a shortage of toothpaste, toasters or televisions – the wonders of capitalism will result in supply increasing to meet the extra demand. Housing is more tricky.

It is not just about having a roof over your head. The aspiration is for ownership. No wonder there is indignation from those thwarted from owning a home when they hear of others who own two. If the second home is used as a holiday let, then that is not so bad. Perhaps allowing families to get a break in a desirable seaside location. Hove, to pluck an example out of the air. But how annoying if it just sits empty most of the time. Still worse if it is a third home and thus getting used even less.

Angela Rayner has claimed that her primary residence is in her Ashton-under-Lyne constituency (though her neighbours there have never seen her.) The taxpayer provides her with a ministerial apartment in Admiralty House, a Grade I-listed building in Whitehall – we also pay her £2,034 annual council tax bill because it is designated as her second home. So that’s convenient for her to get into her office at the Housing Ministry. I can’t imagine she commutes in often from Hove, where she has her third home.

So part of the saga concerns MPs expenses. Since the scandal exploded in 2009, the issue has never really been resolved. Last year, Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, was criticised for having her heating paid for. Even if it is justified to fund second homes for MPs, why should that include energy bills? They can’t be in two places at once and so don’t need to leave the heating on. But a better reform would be to pay MPs more but drastically cut back their expenses. Provided there was a net saving to the taxpayer, it  would be politically acceptable.

But beyond that is Labour’s record of denouncing second homes. The Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook has spoken in Parliament about the “negative impacts of excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes”, which affect “local services” as well as “the availability and affordability of homes for local residents to buy and rent”. He has also said:

“We are considering what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures they face.”

Does his boss agree?

Then there is Alex Norris, a Labour MP and another Minister in Rayner’s Department. He has declared that the “housing crisis” is “exacerbated by the proliferation of second homes and short-term lets.” Second home ownership has “real consequences for local residents, whether it is high prices relative to earnings, people being pushed out of the choice of home ownership or having to leave their community.”

Will he come up with bright ideas for the Secretary of State as to how these awful second homeowners could be thwarted?

Treasury Minister James Murray has said of second homes that the Government “recognise that they can impact the availability and affordability of main homes in some communities.” He added:

“That is why we have enabled councils to charge a premium of up to 100% on the council tax bills of second homes, increased the higher rates of stamp duty land tax on the purchase of second homes and abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime.”

He suggested further action might be needed “to tackle second homes.”

Chris Bryant, the Culture Minister, pledged to “take action” on second homes. His boss, the Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has thundered:

“Excessive rates of second home ownership have a direct impact on communities, and especially the availability and affordability of homes for local families and young people.”

John Healey, the Defence Secretary, feels second homes are so awful they should be taxed more to combat the “growing gap between Britain’s housing ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. ”

Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, has said:

“I see no contradiction in us also promoting home-ownership – not for more landlords or second homes, but for ordinary working people – nurses, electricians, delivery drivers and care workers – currently priced out.”

I could go on. But I think I have conveyed the gist.

For the Greeks, the Spaniards and the Dutch, second home ownership is commonplace. Perhaps between a third and a half of households have them. Good for them. For us it is only a twentieth. Demonising them as class traitors is not the answer. We need to have a proper housing market where supply is allowed to increase to end the shortage we have at present. If Rayner could go just some way to achieve that then we can wish her well for a happy retirement in Hove after the next election. The problem is that, thus far her efforts are proving derisory. Housing is becoming less affordable than ever. For others.