Videos of a Labour Party conference fringe meeting showed the latest housing secretary Steve Reed arriving to loud music, wearing a red Trump-style hat with the slogan ‘Build baby build’. Once he got the microphone working, he tried a call and response with the red hat-wearing audience – ‘Build, Baby, Build’, ‘What’s this country gonna do?’
The social media response was derisive. One of the more polite comments was ‘Muppets new film trailer released’. Most workers coping with the housing crisis will not have been following the conference in detail, but there is no reason to think their response would have been more positive if they had tuned in.
It would be hard to find a housing boss that believes Labour will achieve its much-heralded aim of building 1.5 million homes by 2029. But if it did succeed the question would remain: will the homes be good quality and genuinely affordable?
In London, Sadiq Kahn promised that 50% of all new homes built would be ‘affordable’ when he was first elected in 2016. But he introduced a target of 35% as a first step. If we leave aside the fact that ‘affordable’ did not mean anything like council homes, and is best read as ‘unaffordable’, the target was never effectively enforced. Developers get away with much lower proportions of ‘affordable’ housing while selling the rest ‘off plan’ to investors.
The raft of policies making housing development more profitable is failing to produce more housing, and the problem is particularly acute in London. The number of homes under construction in London has fallen from about 60,000 in 2015-20 to 40,000 now, according to the consultants Molior. They suggest the figure could fall as low as 15,000 by 2027.
It has recently been widely reported that the proportion of ‘affordable’ homes will be reduced further. The community infrastructure levy, which supports projects like schools, roads, and healthcare facilities, is also up for being slashed. The House Builders Federation and others have called for relaxing safety, planning and environmental controls.
Before the election, Labour trumpeted supportive statements from developers and finance as demonstrating that their policies would have a real impact on the housing crisis. And no doubt they will find supporters for more easing of the ‘burden of red tape and regulation’. But as Suzanne Muna, a Socialist Party member and representative of the Social Housing Action Campaign (SHAC), was quoted as saying on the BBC, the desire to cut the number of [affordable] homes built on new estates “had far more to do with greed than with concerns over the complexity of planning”. Regulations, she added, were “there for a reason” after incidents like the Grenfell fire, and should be maintained.
Meanwhile the housing crisis continues to deepen. The most recent homelessness figures show that 172,000 children are stuck in temporary accommodation, up by 8% over the last year. Councils spent a total of £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation for 2024-2025, a 25% increase in a year. This spending is often cited as the key driver pushing local councils into issuing section 114 notices – often described as ‘bankruptcy’.
Housing associations have pressed the government for a commitment to higher than inflation rent increases for a decade and for ‘rent convergence’ bringing lower rents up. They argue they need this in order to attract investors. In other words, social tenants’ rent going to profit ‘investors’.
The narrative is that in order to boost housebuilding any obstacle to profit must be pushed aside. History gives the lie to this. In 1975, when house building was at a peak there was rent control, secure tenancies in the private rented sector, and planning control. There was also fully funded council house building.
Housing austerity is not even a simple matter of cutting state spending. Rather than being focused on meeting housing need it is increasingly focused on the demands of finance and of landlords. The Chartered Institute of Housing has produced inflation-adjusted figures comparing annual spending on housing in 2024 with spending in 1975. It calculates that this stood at £31 billion in 2024 compared to £22 billion in 1975. In 2024 just 12% goes to house building and improvement and the rest goes in benefits. In 1975, 95% went on building and improvement while just 5% went on benefits.
Successive Tory and Labour governments have sought to cut funding for council housing, increase rents and partially offset this with housing benefits that have increasingly functioned as a subsidy for landlords. From the 1972 Housing Finance Act, which was resisted by Clay Cross council (see Socialism Today, No.163, November 2012), there have been repeated attempts to undermine and destroy council housing.
In the past, some socialist Labour councils were prepared to fight for their communities. The Clay Cross councillors refused to increase rents. What a contrast with a Labour housing minister wearing his MAGA hat and the entirely compliant Labour councillors around the country.
In this context, the recently elected leader of the Greens, Zack Polanski can get a big response by speaking out with punchy but limited demands. Policies such as rent control and ‘abolishing landlords’ have a real appeal and are a significant element in the rapid growth in Green party membership since his election.
A rounded-out programme for the housing crisis would have to include nationalising the banks and tackling land ownership. But numerous local authority responsibilities are housing related. After the May elections the Green Party had 895 councillors in England and Wales, but they are not leading effective local fightbacks. On the contrary, when the Greens took the lead on the council in Bristol their budget featured an extra £50 million cuts by comparison to the previous Labour council!
If Your Party were to follow through on comments by Zarah Sultana backing the demand for ‘no-cuts’ council budgets there would be the potential to build a massive campaign for decent and affordable housing. It could link with other forces such as Unite the Union which has a policy of calling on councillors to refuse to implement cuts.
A truly ‘needs-based’ council budget would include building council homes, bearing down on rents and boosting repairs. But there is also a range of services that could also be boosted. Examples could include support for democratic tenant and resident organisation, landlord registration, services supporting private tenants such as free legal aid and advice, and environmental health services to pick up unhealthy housing conditions.
Environmental retrofitting of homes by underregulated private contractors is proving a disaster: 98% of the external wall insulation fitted under the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) and Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS) needs replacing. Six percent pose immediate health and safety risks. Councils could and should step in to ensure basic standards.
Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite commented some years ago, “it is not enough for councillors to shrug their shoulders and pass the buck. Local authorities can agree balanced, legal budgets that do not make cuts. It is perfectly possible for them to use their reserves and borrowing powers to plug gaps while at the same time campaigning for adequate central government funding to safeguard council services. I would like to see my union at the heart of integrated campaigns inside communities, fighting for better services and giving council workers the proper pay rise they deserve”.
Clearly neither Labour nor Green councillors have taken this challenge up. But Your Party could transform the politics of housing by taking a no-cuts position.
Paul Kershaw