As a serial renter in London, I’m acutely aware of some of the problems facing people who either through choice or not having yet had an opportunity to buy, rent properties in the private sector in Britain. In fact I’m not just a serial renter myself; I’ve never lived in a property which was owned, either by myself or my family. I grew up in rented property. I have no intellectual problem with renting, and although I fully understand why people want to purchase their own homes, I don’t see anything wrong with renting as a long-term solution to an individual’s or family’s housing needs. In fact in many countries, renting isn’t looked down on as it perhaps is here.

There are several people I know who are also experienced in the ins and outs of renting over a long period in the UK. Not just well-earning professionals, some with families who want to work part-time and also unemployed people (who still in my opinion deserve a nice, safe home). In fact it’s in these kind of groups where we see the real problems in the private sector rental market. If you’re a young couple with no children, both earning a respectable salary each, you can most likely afford to pay a sizeable rent, plus what is often ten weeks rent up-front (covering a six week deposit, plus the first month’s rent). If, however, you have say two children and only one of you works, firstly your rent will be higher as you need at least a second bedroom, but your income will be significantly lower because there’s only one bread-winner. If you have no income coming into the family whatsoever, then you’re in an even worse position.

Cost aside, another big issue is the length of rental leases, particularly in big cities. Neighbourhoods thrive on having people and families live there, and stay there over a long period, better still with different generations and socio-economic backgrounds living alongside each other. But it’s hard to facilitate communities like this if the renters, which will make up a large portion of property-dwellers in any area, have to pack up and move after just a year in a property. People are often expelled for no particular reason, other than the fact that the landlord wants to increase the rent or divide a property into sub-lets, or just find a tenant with a different background. I think this is unique to the UK, and acute in London. I once rented a property in Porto, Portugal for a year, and the tenure’s starting term was five years (we later had to move back to Britain, and we negotiated an exit with the landlord) – which is the norm in Portugal, and other countries where renting is more socially acceptable.

We should reform the private housing system to encourage landlords to rent their properties out for longer periods. We’ve done a lot already, but there’s more to do. And private rentals can pick up a lot of the built-up demand that exists for social housing in big cities like London. This government has reformed the housing benefit system, and has introduced what is in my mind a very effective tool in the Local Housing Allowance, which is accurately tapered to the real-time rental values of properties down to the specific post code. It used to be the case that housing benefit claimants would receive a nominal fee, more often than not below the actual value of the rent. Whenever you look at property rental ads, it’s not long before you see the ignorant and technically incorrect “no DSS” (or no department for social security, which no longer exists, but alludes to housing benefit claimants). If we’ve reformed the system so claimants are guaranteed that they will receive a certain amount before they move into a property, we should now make it illegal for landlords to refuse a letting on the basis of the tenant’s income or status with regards to benefits. There are plenty of trustworthy tenants out there who for whatever reason have come into misfortune and need to claim housing benefit for a period; it’s in the interest of private landlords to rent to tenants who effectively have state-backed rent income. We should also end the practice which allows landlords to discriminate against families with children – there’s no intellectual, ethic or logical reason for it, and it’s an unfair discrimination.

Surely we should give the option of being able to sustainably rent a private sector property to those people who would benefit from social housing? Those people and families shouldn’t be forced to live on housing estates, but should have the choice. In fact, renting on the private sector comes with a level of independence that some people might find attractive, we just need to help those people who can’t get into the system themselves.

There is a problem with the deposit system in this country. In Switzerland, a tenant has the option to buy a private insurance policy instead of providing a huge sum of money at the start of a contract. Now that we’ve forced landlords to put deposit money in safe, untouchable places, and have thus taken away the financial incentive that some corrupt landlords once had to steal deposits or make false claims against them, why not go further and allow tenants to use insurance rather than deposits to give the landlord security? The landlord will still be protected, and will just have to make a claim against a policy should a tenant damage a property or elope. This should be the prerogative of the tenant, not the landlord. This will no doubt help thousands of struggling families across the United Kingdom who are placed in B&Bs for months and sometimes years, because they can’t afford to find their own property on the rental market.

One last point, about housing benefit. Let’s make it 100% means tested. It makes little sense in many parts of the country, that families who are renting (both private and social housing) are forced to stay in unemployment or menial employment just so they can continue to receive the housing benefit to cover their rent. The way the “taper” system works means that if your income goes over a certain level (I think it’s around £17,000 but I may be wrong on that), the benefits received stop completely. So it can make more sense for people to work a menial job than to pursue their professional development to the full, out of fear that they won’t be able to pay their rent. There may be areas where even if you earn say £25,000, you cannot pay the full rent, and so therefore should still receive some help toward it.

We spend a lot of time thinking about policies which encourage people to buy property. That’s fine, and mass property ownership is certainly a way to make a society prosperous, but there are those who don’t want to buy or cannot. Let’s make the system easier for them. If we do, everybody benefits, not just the tenants. The housing market will be more secure, there will be less empty properties, city communities will be more diverse and fewer families and individuals will be homeless.

This one came as a bit of a shock to be honest. Just after Rupert Murdoch famously acquired the Wall Street Journal in 2007, he hinted at opening that newspaper’s website up for free access. Which made me happy. I love reading newspapers, but I probably on average buy one every week or two (and it’s usually the weekend edition, which I can labour over for two days). On a daily basis though, I will visit a combination of the following for news and insight:

- The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk)

- Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk)

- Financial Times (http://www.ft.com)

- New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com)

As well as a wide range of blogs and magazine websites. I like to stay informed, and it helps me to do my job more effectively and keep an eye on what’s going on in the world. Every one of the above, with a slight exception in the FT (you can read a number of articles for free and then there is a small fee), is 100% free to access. You can read practically every single article you could in the actual paper by using these websites. You can do the same with most mainstream newspapers, including the Independent, Telegraph etc. Most newspapers seem to be embracing this concept, and we’ve even seem some innovative developments, like the NYTimes Skimmer (which is a web 2.0 God-send!):

http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/

But today Murdoch announced that from next Summer, he’ll be charging for access to (amongst others) the Times, Sun & News of the World. Firstly this smacks of corporate protectionism in an age where open access to information is fast becoming the norm. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction based on poor results from advertising in the actual newspapers, and looks like, in my opinion, a decision based on insecurity and a lack of understanding of how media consumption will change over the coming years. It’s also a bit naive to think that the average Sun or News of the World reader in the UK will be willing to take out a debit/credit card to access articles. And although I do like the British Times, quality of content has notably gone downhill recently, so I certainly won’t be paying to access that – my payments, if any, will be going toward the FT for top-quality, reporting, which is relatively free of political bias.

According to the Guardian: “Among quality newspapers, Murdoch singled out the Daily Telegraph’s run of stories about MPs’ expenses as an example of news for which consumers would be willing to pay, describing it as a “great scoop”. I disagree. The Telegraph got lucky, and they had the resources to pursue this story way beyond its natural course. But these stories spread like wildfire, and I think more people would have picked up the details from blogs repeating the main points, and from colleagues & friends emailing what they’ve read or heard. I just can’t see a situation where hundreds of thousands of people will pay for access to a newspaper website to read about a single story, when today’s media world is so distributed and open.

A Twitter associate, BevaniteEllie asked the question “Will Murdoch charging for Internet news help the left?”. More broadly, from a political point of view, we should be asking ourselves if people like Rupert Murdoch hold the same power as they once did over politics. Is this knee-jerk reaction yet another sign of the dwindling influence newspapers have? Famously, would-be British prime ministers (and particularly Tony Blair in the mid-90s) sought approval from Rupert Murdoch. A friendly run of stories in the Sun could turn the electoral tide here. That was a long time ago, and the world has changed permanently. Media power is now so diffuse that no single “mogul” can hope to have the same influence over an election as Rupert Murdoch has held for far too long. The successful media companies of the 21st century will be open, dynamic, fast-reacting (whilst hopefully keeping hold of good journalism practices) and rooted in social media; I would much rather live in that world than in the world where an unelected newspaperman can wield such power.

If this latest move from News Corp is a sign that the times are changing, then I welcome it. It’s just a shame that the great newspapers of the 20th century aren’t more able to embrace the changes that we’ve seen since the start of the Internet age.