Any politicians who says “There is no magic money tree” is treating the electorate as children and idiots. And now Rachel Reeves is acting like a latterday snake oil saleswoman.

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 3rd April 2024)

Whenever politicians say “There is no magic money tree”, they are treating the electorate as children and idiots. And all who use this pathetic, empty phrase should forfeit the right to be regarded as serious politicians because it closes down legitimate debate on their political priorities.

The politician who most famously used the phrase was Theresa May in 2017 when attacking Jeremy Corbyn. It has subsequently been used by Rishi Sunak and, most recently, by Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner. Labour is also prone to say that the Conservatives have “maxed out the government’s credit card”, an equally stupid concept. The government does not have a credit card and government finances are not the same as those of a household, itself another simplistic and wrong concept favoured by politicians. Proof of this is that there is always money to fight wars.

The household comparison dates back to Margaret Thatcher who, as far back as the 1979 general election campaign, said: “Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country”. Running a home and running the country are not the same, but what an inspired election slogan! 

There is nothing wrong with a country borrowing for investment, even at times of financial instability. What is not right is to borrow to fund tax cuts or day-to-day spending, at least in the long term. I can think of many occasions when nations, in the wake of economic turmoil, have borrowed to fund huge public investment.  One example, in the wake of the 1929 financial crash, was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ that promoted economic recovery and put Americans back to work through Federal activism. New Federal agencies controlled agricultural production, stabilised wages and prices, and created a vast public works programme for unemployed people. 

The post-war Labour government, at a time of huge debt, made massive investment in creating the NHS, expansion of state education, the building of council housing, and so on. There was a bipartisan approach, not least in housing. During the 1950s, Churchill’s Conservative government delivered new council housing at a rate not seen before or since. Investment in public housing through subsidising the cost of building new homes pays for itself over the years, with lower rents and less public subsidy to help people meet overblown rents. The economics of investment in housing is actually very simple. Investment in bricks and mortar retains value, whereas rent subsidies do not. This bipartisan approach was broken by Margaret Thatcher who began the dismantling of the social housing sector through the politically popular but economically disastrous Right to Buy programme. 

A new bipartisan consensus in favour of financial austerity has been created following the election of the Cameron government in 2010, and Labour front benchers have meekly performed lemming impersonations by following the Conservatives (and until 2015, the Lib Dems) over the austerity cliff. Historians will look back at this era with astonishment – that the major parties were so economically short-sighted and inept that the wellbeing of the nation was sacrificed in the pursuit of power.

If, as expected, Labour forms the next government, it will have voluntarily tied its own hands by adopting Conservatives financial rules. Labour supporters are not enthused by the wooden and lacklustre Sir Keir Starmer – “Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest, the Human Bollard” as Boris Johnson called him. They are destined to be as disappointed by the failure of Labour in government as they have been appalled by the Conservative’s demolition derby antics. 

Following the 2007-08 global financial crisis, the country needed investment but got austerity. When the country needed “strong and stable Leadership” as promised by Theresa May, we had a succession of circus clowns prime ministers unable and unwilling to invest in public services or to control the privatised monopolies. Successive Conservatives promised growth but had absolutely no idea how to achieve it. Now Rachel Reeves, acting like a latterday snake oil saleswoman, promises growth but rules out investment (not least in housing), promoting a valueless and fraudulent remedy that is destined to fail.

Labour will win the forthcoming general election, not because the electorate has any high hopes that “things can only get better” (to quote the 1997 Blairite strap line) but because voters are sick to the back teeth of the chaos of Conservative ‘rule’. And when Labour inevitably fails in government, it will be responsible for a massive swing to the right, by-passing a Conservative Party in mortal decline, to Reform UK and, even more worryingly, to parties on the extreme right.

How many more U-turns can we expect from Sir Keir Starmer?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 26th July 2023)

Labour’s failure to win the Uxbridge by-election has been blamed on ULEZ – the Ultra Low Emission Zone, a charge based on vehicles and emissions designed to reduce pollution. Now Sir Keir Starmer is backtracking on his commitment to this environment-friendly policy. U-turns by Starmer are nothing new since he became Labour leader.

Sir Keir Starmer (right) and Sir Tony Blair

When standing for the leadership, Starmer made a range of commitments.  All wannabe Shadow Ministers fell over themselves to endorse this new dawn for Labour. It wasn’t the policies that had cost Labour the 2019 election, they said, it was the former leader, Jeremy Corbyn. 

In the leadership election he called Corby his “friend” and would continue his friend’s work. He has now blocked Corbyn from standing for Labour at the next election because of his stance on anti-semitism within the party, something that apparently did not bother Starmer when he was in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and was hoping to become a Cabinet member under Corbyn.

Top of Starmer’s list of commitments, the first nine words of his leadership pledges, were: “Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners.”  That commitment has gone and Starmer is now committed to lowering taxation.

He promised to nationalise (or, in his words, to bring into “common ownership”) rail, mail, energy and water.  With the timing of a genius, just when such a policy would be almost universally popular, he jettisoned the plan to bring into public ownership the big six energy companies.

In the leadership election, he pledged to end the private sector’s involvement in the NHS. He specifically said he would “end outsourcing”.  A year ago he said that a Labour government would  “likely have to continue with” some private provision in health services. 

Having said in his leadership campaign that he would “work shoulder to shoulder” with trade unions, he has sacked his shadow rail minister, Sam Terry for publicly supporting striking rail workers.

Sir Keir’s commitment to abolish university tuition fees (a central plank of Corbyn’s platform, one on which Starmer was elected to parliament in 2019, and one that he repeated when standing to succeed his friend), has also gone.  He now says that a Labour government will look at lowering graduate monthly repayments, that the party is “likely to move on from (the abolition of tuition fees) commitment.”

Last week we had the latest U-turn: the dropping of the commitment to abolish the Conservative’s cap on Child Benefit to be payable for just two children.  This policy was described as ‘vile’ and ‘pernicious’ by countless front benchers. Starmer previously described the cap as ‘inhuman’. According to the Guardian, one Labour frontbencher said that even if the policy was popular with focus groups, it was “toxic, morally wrong and doesn’t work”.

Patrick Maguire, the Red Box Editor at The Times who is usually well-informed on these matters, reported that not one member of the Shadows Cabinet spoke out against Starmer’s latest U-turn at a recent meeting where it was discussed.  Pat McFadden, Lisa Nandy and Jonathan Ashworth (the same Ashworth who last month described the cap as ‘heinous’) are reported as having spoken in support of Starmer’s change of heart at last week’s Shadow Cabinet meeting.

Part of Labour’s problem is the increasingly authoritarian, tough-guy imagine being cultivated by Starmer.  He tolerates no dissent.  He sees himself as a modern-day Tony Blair. Even though, like Blair, he has a Conservative Party in total shambles, Sir Keir has neither the personality nor the personal popularity to be a new Blair. (For the record I didn’t like Blair but can acknowledge his abilities and popularity prior to Iraq).

Starmer and Rachel Reeves repeat the mantra that they will not make any commitments that can’t be paid for.  It’s hardly the stuff to inspire.  In defending Starmer’s U-turn, Lucy Powell said on ITV News: “There just, frankly, is no money left (sic).”  

But Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, said this claim is “laughable”. “This is an absurd way of talking about policymaking. Talking about there being no money left is the economics of the kindergarten.”

Portes said: “The idea we do not have money to spend around £1bn to help hundreds of thousands of kids living in deprivation … is ridiculous and no serious economist would support that, regardless of ideology.”

There is money. There is always money to fight wars. Labour is just prioritising lower taxes for the very rich over Child Benefit for the very poor.

Who will succeed Caroline Lucas as MP for Brighton Pavilion?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 14th June 2023)

Caroline Lucas has, deservedly, received fulsome praise following her decision to stand down at the next election as the Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion. She enjoys huge respect across the political spectrum and her departure will be a loss for Brighton and Hove. She will, no doubt, continue to make her mark on public debate and policy as she, as Tony Benn said when he stood down from Parliament, spends “more time devoted to politics and more freedom to do so.”

For thirteen years Caroline has been the lone standard bearer for her party in the Commons. She has twice been the Green Party’s Leader as well as being the most dedicated constituency MP.

The strengths and stature of Caroline, the Greens’ greatest asset, could now become its biggest problem. Who do they have in their ranks who can live up to her qualities. By all comparisons, whoever is chosen to stand for Brighton Pavilion, will be a poor imitation of the real thing, and likely to lose the seat.

Of course the Greens will say that they have an abundance of talent and that there are many capable, keen and available to succeed Caroline. They would say that, wouldn’t they?  The Greens locally have been blessed with a generous abundance of mediocracy, and nationwide they will be looking for talent in the shallow end of U.K. politics.

Should the Greens try to parachute someone in from outside, unless it is someone of extraordinary abilities and a well-known name, they will surely lose. And, anyway, which celebrity candidate would consider for a moment a four or five-year sentence in solitary confinement in that prison known as the House of Commons?

Had Caroline stood for re-election, she would have been re-elected albeit with a much reduced majority (as I said in this column a few weeks back). The reduced majority would be caused, in part, by the inevitable swing to Labour (notwithstanding its lacklustre and increasingly authoritarian leader, Sir Keir Starmer). There is also the Greens’ track record while in office in Brighton and Hove as well as in Scotland, and their alienation of large numbers of women and male sympathisers over their lack of support for single-sex facilities for women.

I cannot see how the Greens can hope to hold onto the seat at the general election. Attention then turns to who the Labour candidate will be. One name that has been mentioned is that of the new Leader of the Council, Bella Sankey. But Caroline’s decision to stand down at this forthcoming election has come too soon for Cllr Sankey. There is a view, which I have previously expressed and which is shared by some in the Labour Group on the City Council, that Bella must see though the commitment she has made to the people of Brighton and Hove by serving as leader for the full four-years of this administration.

There are those, new to electoral politics who, flushed by the success of having been elected for the first time, immediately stand for leadership positions and then, before being tested, seek a parliamentary seat. Notwithstanding this, I have been very impressed by Bella Sankey’s first few weeks as Leader of the Council. She has communicated well, not made unnecessary changes designed merely to consolidate her control, and has brought forward talent from both old and new councillors. In time, she will make an excellent MP, even a Minister, but the vacancy in Brighton Pavilion has come one election cycle too soon.

Another possibility to be Labour’s candidate is Nancy Platts who must be one of the unluckiest politicians of our age – standing unsuccessfully in Brighton Pavilion against Caroline Lucas in 2010, then narrowly losing out in Brighton Kemptown in 2015, before losing the leadership on the Council following the implosion of the Labour Group through no fault of her own. It would be fitting and proper if she was to become the next MP for Brighton Pavilion. 

Nancy is well-liked, has a good reputation and would make a first rate MP. However, she is probably unacceptable to Supreme Leader Starmer because of her close association with Jeremy Corbyn when he was Labour’s leader and she was his trade union liaison officer. Labour’s Achilles Heal could be the sacrifice of talent in the pursuit of ‘purity’. Nancy could be a case in point.

As for the Conservatives, hell will freeze over before they, once again, win Brighton Pavilion. Perhaps they could put up a name, a big name. It would have to be a very big name capable of defying all electoral odds.  Who knows, following his petulant resignation last Friday as the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, one Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, might soon be looking for a return to the Commons.

The replacement of Liz Truss as Prime Minister should not, in itself, lead to a general election

If the Conservatives change their leader for the second time this year, that would not be a reason for there to be a general election. In the unwritten British constitution, at election time we do not vote for a prime minister but for a Member of Parliament who offers themselves for election on the basis of a published manifesto. The leader of the party with the most members elected is invited by the Monarch to form a government. If that leader later resigns, dies or is thrown out by their party, the new leader of the party with the most MPs is asked to form a government.  The only criteria is that the can command the confidence of the House of Commons.

While one reasons to vote for a party might be the leader, we still do not vote for that person but for their local candidate (unless, of course the leader is our local candidate). I have some time voted for a party in spite of who the leader is.

The reason why we need a general election is because the governing party has abandoned the manifesto on which members were elected. On that basis, Prime Minister Truss has no mandate.  It is worth noting that the Opposition, too, has abandoned many of its manifesto pledges on which their MPs were elected in 2019 under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

I suspect that should Liz Truss be replaced, there would be such a public outcry that the pressure on the new Prime Minister to get a fresh mandate would be overwhelming unless, of course, that the new Prime Minister already has a mandate … Boris Johnson.

Why Paul Hollywood should not have apologised for his Bake Off joke about diabetes

This week The Great British Bake Off presenter, Paul Hollywood, was forced to apologise because he described a pastry as “diabetes on a plate”. It has been suggested that he showed ignorance about the cause and nature of diabetes. I thought his comment was quite funny, and I say this as someone with Type 2 diabetes.

I have a family member who has epilepsy and has no problem with the phrase “brain storm”, a phrase which we are told we should not use.

A while ago we reviewed a policy which suggested that we should not do anything that offends others. Fortunately, this proposal was promptly rejected. We all do things that will offend someone, and if we want to ensure that we never do anything that offends anyone else, we should stay in bed and not communicate with anyone else, ever.

Hang on, suggesting that you should stay in bed excludes those who are rough sleeping, and therefore, potentially offensive.

I do things, and say things, that will offend. As a South African, I love biltong and droerwors (cured meat.) It is delicious and I make no apologies. It offends my vegetarian daughter but I don’t care! 

My daughter has the right to be offended. You have the right to be offended.

On Sunday evening I am going to see Jonathan Pie at the Brighton Dome. He offends, sometimes deliberately. He is also very funny. I get offended by some of the things he says, but sometimes I am challenged by his analysis. He makes me think.

Jonathan Pie says about Donald Trump: “With his ‘unmatched wisdom’, Trump is an ideas man. He’s full of them. It’s just a shame they’re all falling out of his arse.”  That is moderately funny, not very clever, definitely juvenile. Anti-Trump people might find it funny and won’t be offended, but the same people might be offended if Jonathan Pie says that about Jeremy Corbyn or Caroline Lucas.

As for the Paul Hollywood’s diabetes comment, Jonathan Pie said: “I’ve got an idea…why don’t we all just stop talking and interacting and making TV programmes about baking and making silly little jokes and instead all just go and kill ourselves. That way we will never cause offence to anyone ever again.”

That joke will certainly offend, even upset people. But it is joke, albeit in bad taste. I just wonder how we became a society that is so averse to being offended. I’m not talking about racism, anti-semitism, sexism, misogyny, etc. Be offended by that.  Protest about that. But please don’t equate that with silly jokes and different opinions expressed by others. 

And if you ‘offend’ others, please don’t apologise if sensitive people take offence. I’m sorry Paul Hollywood apologised. 

What the government’s housing white paper needs to say

This could be a big week for housing, with the government publishing its long-awaited housing strategy. Today (Sunday 5th February) the government has hinted at a new emphasis on people who rent their homes.

I welcome what Housing Minister Gavin Barwell has said, that there will be minimum term tenancies and more homes built for rent, signaling a “change of tone” from previous Conservative Party policy. But the key issue is what sort of rental homes they will be? Will tenants have greater security of tenure and, critically, will they be truly affordable?

I have lost count of the number of announcement, housing strategies, policy documents and white papers there have been over the last 25 years. Most have delivered little. Some have been disastrous. And the housing crisis has just got worse.

Will this latest iteration be any different. Yes, if as promised there is a shift from the obsession with home ownership. As I have already said do one of the key issues is whether the promised homes for rent will be truly affordable.

If, as I suspect, the government will be looking for institutional investors (pension funds, for example) to make it happen, then we will be disappointed. Yes, pension funds are keen to invest in property. Unlike governments, pension funds take a long term view, beyond the immediate political cycle. But they are, by their very nature, looking for the best possible return. If there are rent controls, as I believe there should be, the pension funds won’t be interested.

Private landlords already make a valuable contribution to meeting housing need, but with land prices being what they are, they will not be producing any homes in the affordability bracket needed.

The average privately rented one bed flat in Brighton is now £971 per month. The most housing benefit will pay is £612 per month (the Local Housing Allowance – LHA). To make the private rented sector affordable to those on medium, low and no income, the government could either abolish the LHA, but that would cost billions of Pounds, year on year and forever. It could put a cap on the amount a landlord can charge, but then investors in the private rented market would disappear. Anyway, I cannot see any government intervening in the market in this way.

There is another way, which makes financial sense in the long term: invest and build council houses along with housing association homes. This will require upfront capital investment, in the acquisition of land, and the building of homes. A one-off subsidy in capital investment can ensure that there isn’t a need for ongoing rent subsidies through housing benefit.

I have no illusion about local councils, many of whom lack imagination and courage when it comes to modern design and construction methods. They will have to up their game considerably.

What of the right to buy? It must surely be ended. More than a third of the homes sold through the right to buy have ended up in the private rented sector with rents three of four higher than when they were in council ownership. It makes no sense in economic or housing terms, although it has proven to be political popular in spite of the negative impact it has had on the provision of homes for people in the greatest need.

So what of aspiration? Gavin Barwell has said that the government had not given up making home ownership available to all. Most people, when asked, say they would like to own their own home. But for around half the population, that aspiration is unachievable, even with the huge public subsidies on offer. A more achievable aspiration could be the provision a homes for people who need them, at rents that people can afford.

I hope that secure tenancies will be reintroduced. People need that security, as well as the flexibility that renting should offer. I disagree with Jeremy Corbyn who has been quoted as saying that the rental market was “incapable of giving people the security they need”. I disagree. People used to have much greater security of tenure, and there is no reason why that can’t happen again for those who pay their rent and don’t cause anti-social behaviour. It requires a change in the law and investment in services offering advice and representation so that tenants’ rights can be enforced. That is something the government can deliver on, and quickly.

Theresa May said on the steps of Downing Street that her government will help those who are “just about managing”. This housing strategy needs to go beyond that. It needs to help those who already aren’t managing. Her housing strategy will be judged on whether it addresses the issue of affordability and supply.

I am not holding my breath, but hope to be pleasantly surprised.

The Government has announced its plans for supported housing – some positives, many worries

For the better part of a year I have been blogging on a regular basis about the threat to specialist supported housing services posed by the government’s announcement to cap rents to the maximum paid through the Local Housing Allowance (LHA). See here, here and here, for some examples.

BHT featured in a special report on Channel 4 News highlighting our concerns. Almost every other provider of specialist supported housing has also expressed their concern. The National Housing Federation launched a campaign in the summer to save supported housing.

The scale of the problem was recognised recently by Theresa May in response to a question from Jeremy Corbyn relating to the risk that the cap poses to women’s refuge services.

Last week the government announced its plans for the future funding of supported housing services. While there is some temporary relief, the risk remains of serious concern.

Rather than imposing the cap from April 2018, it is now scheduled to be imposed from April 2019.

Rt Hon Damian Green MP

This, according to the Cabinet Minister, Damian Green MP, is to allow time for the details of the new future funding regime to be worked out and arrangements to be put in place.

Yet the government still intends to proceed with a 1% rent reduction for three years from April 2017.

There seems to be a certain lack of logic here. On the one hand the government is not implementing the LHA cap because it has heard concerns about the risk to the financial viability of specialist supported housing yet at the same time it is cutting income.

(It is worth remembering that the 1% reduction was a U-turn on a previous commitment by government made as recently as 2014 to allow increases in rents by CPI +1%).

It appears that the government intends that rent and service charges in specialist supported housing will be funded through housing benefit or universal credit up to the LHA rate.

To make up the shortfall, top up funding will be made available to local authorities and this will be ring fenced for support housing. Ring fencing is to be welcomed although there used to be ring fenced funding for supported housing as part of the old Supporting People regime but the government removed it a few years ago (2013 I think). As a consequence, warnings over the loss of funding for supported housing came true.

The government provides an assurance that there will be no loss of overall funding compared to current expenditure, But my serious concern is that the value of funding being made available to local authorities will be eroded in future years. Will it, for example, be indexed linked? And if LHA is frozen in the future, will the local pots be increased correspondingly or will there be an overall contraction in the amounts being committed by government?

Then there is the administrative costs associated with creating two systems from one. Currently it is all administered through housing benefit.  From 2019 local authorities will have to have additional staff in place to administer the local pots.  Where is the efficiency in that?  And who will pay for this additional, unnecessary cost?

Currently the funding is made available on a national basis. However, in the future, with the funding going to local authorities, will more mobile groups such as rough sleepers, ex-offenders and victims of domestic violence lose out if local connection rules become tighter, as I am sure they will?

One positive feature is the announcement that the Shared Accommodation Rate will not apply to people living in the supported housing sector which (if I understand it correctly) means that some of our specialist supported accommodation that would have been unaffordable for those under 35 will no longer be out of their reach. Unfortunately, the same exemption will not apply to our non-supported housing, resulting in many of our homes being beyond the reach of those under 35 who will remain eligible for rooms in shared houses only.

The devil will be in the detail. I’m not completely disheartened at this stage, but there are inherent risks in the limited detail that has been made available so far.

While there are some things to welcome in the announcement, there are many things that still cause me concern.  At least, I think, the government has heard the concerns BHT and others have expressed.

Has Theresa May fallen for unnecessary scaremongering or are specialist support services really at risk?

I have written regularly (most recently on Friday) about George Osborne’s announcement in the Autum Statement that all rents in social housing were to be capped at Local Housing Allowance levels. Many of us warned about the dire consequences, particularly in specialist supported housing projects including women’s refuges. This prompted a DWP spokesman to say: “This is unnecessary scaremongering, which does nothing to help those it purports to represent. The truth is that nothing will change until 2018.”

On Wednesday Theresa May responded to a question from Jeremy Corbyn about the threat these measures would have on women’s refuges, the Prime Minister replied: “The right honourable gentleman raises a very important issue on the issue of domestic violence. We are doing all we can to stop these terrible crimes taking place and to provide support to the victims and survivors of these crimes. That’s why we are working on exempting refuges from the cap.”

It is clear that Mrs May has accepted the evidence that, in the case of women’s refuges, two out of three would close if the LHA cap is implemented. The same warning must apply also to the rest of specialist supported housing services.

Was the DWP spokesman correct and will he denounce Mrs May for her unnecessary scaremongering …?

Theresa May throws a possible lifeline to women’s refuges, and must now do the same for specialist supported housing

Last December and January I possibly overstepped the mark on party political comment by being quite critical of government (see here and here). The issue related to the proposed cap on the benefits paid to residents of specialist supported housing, known as the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) Cap.

At first I felt quite a lone voice on that the issue which did not seem to be causing much concern in the housing sector.

The issue was then picked up by the then Shadow Housing Minister, John Healey, and he and BHT appeared in a special Channel 4 News feature. Since then it has become a mainstream concern in the social housing world.

Now it has cropped up on Prime Minister’s Questions when, last Wednesday, Jeremy Corbyn asked Theresa May to provide assurances that women’s refuges would not be subject to the cap.  This follows a warning from Women’s Aid that two out of three refuges might have to close.

I was delighted with the Prime Minister’s response: “The right honourable gentleman raises a very important issue on the issue of domestic violence. We are doing all we can to stop these terrible crimes taking place and to provide support to the victims and survivors of these crimes. That’s why we are working on exempting refuges from the cap.”

This is great news for women’s refuges, but my concern is much, much wider. BHT’s own research says that many of our supported housing schemes will become unaffordable for anybody under the age of 35 and some accommodation will be unaffordable for those over 35.

Many housing associations are now reviewing their lettings policy to exclude lettings to those under 35 (who are eligible for lower rates of benefit).

I hope the Prime Minister will be able to say where all these young people will live when, currently, special supported housing is the only place that will accept many of them due to their particular needs.

The new Housing Minister, Gavin Barwell, recently said some very positive things about ending rough sleeping, but the LHA cap alone could see a deluge of young people ending up on the street.

Let us not forget that research has shown that every pound spent on especially supported housing saves the public purse £4.11. This return on investment, surely, provides a rationale for proper and stable investment in this vital, life-saving provision. The LHA cap is absolutely ill-conceived.

The government must abandon this ridiculous, damaging and dangerous proposal.

 

 

60 seconds with …. Andy Winter

The Brighton Argus asked me to answer some questions about myself.  It was incredibly hard to do.  Ask me to write 400 words and I will knock them out in 30 minutes.  But this?  I found it so difficult.  Anyway, this is what I said (published in the Argus on 29th August 2016):

60 Seconds with Andy Winter

Andy Winter has worked for the housing and homelessness charity Brighton Housing Trust since 1985 and has been its chief executive since 2003.

What is your favourite place in Sussex?

At the County Ground in 2003 on the day Sussex CCC won the County Championship for the first time

The County Ground on a warm early evening in late June, watching Sussex CCC. It would be even better if they were to win more than occasionally.

What do you love most about living in Sussex?

The variety – the people, the sea, the countryside, the City of Brighton and Hove. Have I mentioned Sussex CCC?

What advice do you have for your 12-year-old self?

The twelve year old – already a lifelong affliction to Stoke City

Decide what you believe in, and change your mind when the facts tell you to. Also, don’t support Stoke City FC – it will lead to lifelong misery.

What is your most valued possession?

My family would say my iPad. It is true, I am lost without it. But it is also provides access to things I do value: my photos, my writing, and my family history archives.

What is your biggest regret?

Mary Berry – no soggy bottoms here, thank you

Being lazy, and not achieving everything I should have, not least in athletics. Today I regret not reading enough, not exercising enough, and not becoming the new Mary Berry (I can’t bake!).

What is your biggest fear?

Something terrible happening to my daughter, Clare, or others who are close to my heart.

What is your proudest achievement?

I have two. The first is an achievement shared with my wife – seeing Clare grow up into an impressive and lovely young woman.  The second is having played a part with many brilliant colleagues in making Brighton Housing Trust what it is, and thereby helping to improve the lives of several thousand people each year.

Which five people (living or dead) would you invite to your fantasy dinner party?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu

My family including my much missed mum, but if I was forced to socialise more widely, I would choose the following: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man of great courage and faith who I once met, to say Grace and to make me laugh; Emily Wilding Davison, a militant suffragette and martyr, who was about as popular beyond her cause as Jeremy Corbyn is today beyond his; Tony Benn, a most charming man who was a walking encyclopaedia of twentieth century politics; Mary Berry, but only if she brings some diabetic Lemon Drizzle Cake and makes references to soggy bottoms; and Adele to provide the after dinner entertainment.