In recent local and mayoral elections, Labour won more than 1,000 of the 2,660 council seats up for election and nine out of ten regional mayor contests. The Green Party also took some big wins, achieved in part by pushing ambitious social housing and rent control policies. Given that 2024 is an election year for the UK, there looks to be a serious prospect of a change in the party achieving power. With this in mind, it is important to put the new policies we may see coming into effect soon under a microscope.
The UK has been experiencing an increasingly pressing housing crisis. This has been perpetuated by homes not being built quickly enough, a mass over-concentration of people requiring housing (particularly in London), which has led to spiralling rent prices. Housing issues look to have reached a point where voters will be seriously influenced by each parties' housing reform offering. The major political parties have already begun to make bold housing statements, and drilling down into these statements allows us to see the key differences in party offerings on housing.
Target practice
Few political policies are complete without an ambitious target attached to them. This is no different when it comes to housing policies.
The Conservatives have made it clear that they will remain committed to their current target of developing 300,000 new homes each year by the mid-2020s, whereas Labour have proposed a mandatory target of 1.5 million new homes within 5 years. One might question the difference between these, but where the battle lines are seeming to be drawn is social housing. Michael Gove has alluded to a target of 30,000 social homes each year, whilst Labour is pushing for up to 150,000 social or affordable homes annually, a target which the Green party have similarly referred to.
The assigned importance to targets is perhaps reflected most by the inner-party clash at the 2023 Liberal Democrat conference, where leadership plans to scrap their 380,000 homes a year target was reversed by the influence of young party members.
The major political parties are looking to set headline-grabbing targets for housing, but whether these are posturing tools or can actually be achieved remains to be seen.
Supply and demand
Another area where policies may diverge is in addressing the slow supply of housing, versus improving people's ability to enter the housing market.
The Conservatives have tended to push for 'demand-side' policies, for example improved support for first-time buyers through longer term fixed-rate mortgages, new versions of Help to Buy and reforms to stamp duty. These are all designed to help individuals get access to housing.
Labour have not ignored this and have promised a "comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme", but they have also emphasised 'supply-side' policies. These may look like reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and making Compulsory Purchase Orders cheaper. The vision with these policies is that making more new market homes can also lead to more affordable housing through reformed s106 agreements.
The Conservative approach could be explained in part by traditionally Conservative constituencies in suburbs and shires being more vulnerable to organised opposition to new development. The Liberal Democrats also have voter tension in this area, as they typically appeal to younger voters who want to see new housing, but also tend to compete in similar parts of the country that can face stern opposition to housing developments.
There is no doubt that both major parties will propose actions to combat both supply and demand, but lines could be drawn between the balance of making affordable homes, against helping homes become affordable.
Location, location, location
Experts and politicians alike continue to tackle the issue of where to build housing in an increasingly densely populated country.
The need to develop brownfield sites is established and both Labour and the Conservatives have kept a focus on these areas. However, Conservative interest is in growing existing cities, with Leeds and Cambridge being identified as areas with high demand. Labour, however, have an interest in developing so called 'grey belt' areas that are underused but have good transport links.
Labour's outline plans have been met with support; the British Property Federation has stated that there is a lot of poor-quality green belt land which has good transport links, and so should be brought to life. However, countryside charity CPRE advises caution with this approach:
"The green belt is crucial to solving the climate, nature, and food crises and it is protected by law for a reason … If done badly, Labour’s policy could permit landowners to run down land for speculative development. Instead, the green belt needs to deliver affordable homes on brownfield sites, while today’s scrubland can become the woodlands and wetlands of tomorrow.”
This is a familiar issue for the Green party who seem to be pushing for more brownfield development, which could be seen as an attempt to appease those voters who want to protect the UK's natural areas.
Both parties will need to walk a tightrope of encouraging development of housing across the country but avoiding alienating environmentally conscious voters.
Conclusion
Battle lines have been drawn, and housing looks to be one of the key fronts in the upcoming election. Regardless of which party is successful, those in property should welcome housing being at the forefront of political debate, and one would hope that whoever is successful will be looked at with a magnifying lens to prove successful delivery of what looks to be ambitious plans on all sides.
