星空传媒

I, like most people, quite happily take refuge in the pleasant fantasy world of entertainment, screening out the deluge of bad news with something light and unchallenging. And there is nothing wrong with a spot of escapism. The concept of 鈥渂urn-out鈥� is pretty well established and charities are very aware of the dangers of 鈥渃ompassion fatigue鈥�. Yet surely an equivalent danger lies in unwillingness to confront the realities of life for a substantial minority of us in the UK (and a clear majority if one takes a more global perspective).

The recent furore over Shelter鈥檚 latest campaign, timed to coincide with, though not to undermine, the Ideal Home Show, illustrates the point perfectly. The Ideal Home Show is informative, fun and completely harmless. There is a massive demand in the country for what it represents, and this demand, whether translated into ringing cash tills at estate agents and DIY stores, or merely confined to pleasant daydreaming, cuts across class, gender, age, region and purchasing power.

So, for example, last year we spent 拢400 million on DIY and home improvements, and whole TV channels now seem dedicated to re-runs of Changing Rooms; Location, Location, Location; DIY SOS; Grand Designs and House Doctor before we even get started on new homes in the sun. For the sake of emphasis, and to head off the risk of being labelled a Deidre Spart-style, 鈥渓oony-left鈥� Trotskyite 鈥� this is all absolutely fine!

Yet alongside our collective passion for homeownership and home improvement, should we not also keep in mind the often desperate plight of those locked out of these opportunities? That, after all, was the point of Shelter鈥檚 鈥淢illion Children Campaign鈥�. This juxtaposition should not threaten anyone. Yet threaten it apparently did 鈥� to the point that the Ideal Home Show organisers declared themselves 鈥渄isappointed鈥� with Shelter. A whiff of controversy, and down, it seems, come the shutters; and not just in Earl鈥檚 Court, but in other shopping centres where Shelter took its campaign.

It took a shocking docu-drama, Cathy Come Home, to put housing and homelessness at the heart of the poverty debate in the 1960s. We have come a long way since then, yet the fact that housing need is more complex than it was 40 years ago should not prevent us from seeing it clearly.

Why were organisers of the Ideal Home Show so threatened when Shelter campaigned at the same venue? A whiff of controversy and, it seems, the shutters come down

That mythical creature, the average householder, enjoys the benefit of a larger capital asset (the value of his or home) than has ever been the case before, to some large extent offsetting the rising costs of home-ownership against record low interest rates. Millions of people have seen their life chances transformed as a result. Yet alongside the soaring net equity in personally owned housing (up from 拢36bn in 1970 to 拢1,525bn now), the number of people with no assets at all doubled from 5% to 10 %. Among the excluded minority, homelessness, explicit and hidden, continue to rise, as well as overcrowding on a scale not seen for generations.

For despite everything that has happened since Cathy come Home 鈥� with all the extra billions spent and the new housing legislation that has increased protection for the vulnerable 鈥� there are still tens of thousands of people out there, suffering. And if we don鈥檛 even see them, if we don鈥檛 put them on the agenda as the flip-side to Ideal Home aspirations, we will never create the momentum to bring them in from the cold.

So by all means let鈥檚 hit the stores, enjoy the exhibition, relax in front of home improvement TV 鈥� but let Shelter and others give us a sobering reality check as well.