Categories
10-year plan for housing Blog Post

Labour’s housing strategy needs to inspire confidence in a daunting context

Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives Plan for Change Speech by No.10 Downing Street is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives Plan for Change Speech by No.10 Downing Street is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The forthcoming long-term housing strategy is a huge opportunity for the government to set the agenda for the next five years or more.

The Starmer government is not the first to have bold plans on housing and, as our recent report examined, successive governments have missed their housebuilding targets. Setting a robust strategy will be key to avoiding the same fate.

The new housing strategy should define success and set a clear direction

Beyond general notions of building more homes and improving affordability, few governments over the past two decades have specified what outcomes they want from their housebuilding programmes and why – including their position on critical policy questions such as where they want new homes to go nationally, and roughly what tenure mix they want to end up with.

Without this clarity, reform programmes have lacked drive, direction, clear success metrics (beyond housing targets) and – as a result – credibility. This has often left the housebuilding industry with no clear or long-term trajectory to confidently invest in, instead being buffeted by constant policy churn, made worse by inconsistent leadership. In recent decades housing policy has rarely featured in prime ministers’ top priorities, while housing ministershave been notoriously short-tenured: the last 10 spent fewer than nine months in post.

The government’s upcoming strategy is, then, an opportunity to go beyond this summer’s broad manifesto promises and nail down what success looks like for its housebuilding programme. To inspire confidence, the strategy should set clear objectives, including a 10-year vision for what housing outcomes the government wants to deliver.

These objectives need to be realistic. We recommend that the government publishes analysis setting out – all things being equal – how it expects its policy programme to affect key outcomes such as housing availability and affordability, compared with a counterfactual where housebuilding rates are lower and the tenure mix stays the same.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

The strategy should offer a roadmap for reconciling policy objectives

Successive governments, of all stripes, have failed to reconcile their housebuilding objectives with other important policy objectives that affect development, like building standards and environmental regulations. These have often undermined each other where, for example, regulations conflict or remain unclear, increase building costs at short notice or create bottlenecks in overstretched planning authorities.

The government must engage honestly with these trade-offs and set out how it plans to take forward its commitments to housebuilding, the environment and building standards in a coherent way. To help, it could commission an environmental regulatory body (such as the Office for Environmental Protection or the Environment Agency) and housing delivery experts (such as Homes England, industry stakeholders and/or regulation experts like the Future Homes Hub) to conduct a joint urgent review into how to combine higher building rates with better environmental outcomes.

The strategy should set out a credible path to delivery

The government has committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes in the next five years, requiring a rate of building not seen since the 1960s. It has been bold elsewhere too, stating that it wants new homes to come with the infrastructure that local areas need, and promising the “biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation”. Both will require increased investment, whether from government, the private sector or from capturing land values.

The government has taken important first steps to setting a better housebuilding record than its predecessors. It has implemented a new National Planning Policy Framework designed to get enough homes through Britain’s planning system, published proposals to reform planning committees to speed up decision making, and increased planning fees to improve planning departments’ capacity and performance. It has also upped investment in the Affordable Homes Programme and committed to reforming Right to Buy – signals that the government is serious about expanding social housing.

But delivery remains daunting. The housing market is in a downturn. Developers are facing a toxic combination of high interest rates (preventing first-time buyers entering the market), materials and labour shortages, and new regulations – from post-Grenfell fire safety regulations to Biodiversity Net Gain and the 2025 Future Homes Standard. All this adds to building costs.

Likewise, social housing providers are struggling with uncertain rent settlements, difficulties getting private finance in a high interest-rate environment, burgeoning maintenance bills and the costs of new regulations. All eyes are on the government’s long-term rent settlement consultation and the June 2025 multi-year spending review, where the government will set out its long-term investment plans in a tight fiscal context.  

The government needs to navigate these challenges to avoid them becoming major blockers. We recommend that its long-term strategy should include a five-year delivery plan, setting out what it expects to deliver in this parliament and how.

The government must prepare to course-correct when needed

No matter how good the government’s ‘Plan A’ is, several factors could throw its housebuilding programme off course, or indeed offer opportunities to progress it faster or more cheaply. Housebuilders – and housing ministers and their teams – will be watching the UK’s future growth projections and interest rates closely.

Recognising this volatility, we recommend that the government’s long-term housing strategy includes plans to monitor and evaluate progress against its objectives. It could, for example, commit to producing regular stocktakes that assess progress, identify current and emerging delivery risks and opportunities, and prompt the government to course-correct where needed.

The strategy is a chance for Labour to put its bold plans into action

Starmer’s government is not the first to enter office promising bold action on housebuilding. For it to become the first, for some decades, to get it right and deliver a programme that works will require a clear, robust and credible strategy. This is what it should be working to produce.

Read From the ground up: How the government can build more homes for the Institute for Government’s full analysis on how the government can meet its housebuilding targets.

Categories
Blog Post

Rachel Reeves’ war on uncertainty

Today, Chancellor Rachel Reeves set out the Government’s plans to promote growth and to kickstart the UK’s economy after a decade of stagnation under the Conservatives.

This followed recent announcements from the Government over the weekend which caused a stir across the housing world. First, Reeves announced a plan to introduce a “zoning scheme”, with a presumption in favour of development around train stations to allow homes to be built faster and without unnecessary barriers. And Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook announced a White Paper on Planning and Infrastructure which reduced the extent to which nationally significant infrastructure projects would have to consult with a broad range of stakeholders.

Sign up to Red brick’s free newsletter

It is clear that stability and certainty is one of the Government’s main arguments for the UK to be an attractive investment destination. With an unpredictable Trump across the Atlantic, and political instability across Europe, Labour’s sizeable majority and loyal party makes the UK a rare island of (relative) calm.

This stability is clearly being driven from Reeves, famously an accomplished chess player, a game whose stability derives from the fact that it only has three variables: the two players participating and which one begins.

In comparison, our planning system currently resembles more a game of Monopoly, driven by the randomness of dice throws, which card you pick out from the Chance pack, and how happy Uncle Greg is with the Christmas present you gave him. The success of a project can rely on a myriad of factors from the personalities of council officers, the reaction of statutory consultees like fire services and environmental bodies, whether the application is close to an election which may make committee members nervous, and whether objectors have the resources to launch a legal challenge. This uncertainty can hold up even the most basic project by months if not years, leading to added costs and less certainty.

The UK’s discretionary planning system is also increasingly an outlier, with most comparable countries instead opting for a zoning system, where projects are approved more by the letter and less by the interpretation of existing rules. If a housing project is promoted in an area designated for housing, it has to fulfil a set of requirements and is then good to go.

In response to this, the Government’s actions seem to attempt to create something closer to a zoning system, particularly in places where the argument for new homes is strongest; they are introducing planning passports for brownfield sites, releasing ‘grey belt’ land under ‘golden rules’ of development, reducing the extent to which judicial review can hold back housing projects, and increasing the amount of delegation to officers from planning committees.

This is all good as far as certainty is concerned. Fewer vetos within the planning system will create greater stability and expectation of a return on investment for people investing money into new housing. At the very least, this will mean that new homes get built faster. An optimistic take would also say that if investors are surer of their returns they will be more able to set aside money for infrastructure investment around new homes, and providing affordable and social housing alongside homes for private sale.

But, as encouraging as these steps are, it is uncertain how many new homes they will deliver in the long-term, with planning departments still under-resourced, developers weighed down with new environmental and quality standards, and delivery in urban areas hampered with significant viability challenges.

While Rachel Reeves may have claimed a few victories in the war on uncertainty, a few major campaigns await.

A final, implementable version of the Future Homes Standard is needed, so that developers have a clear idea of the environmental standard for new homes and adapt accordingly.

Work needs to be done to smooth the operations of the Building Safety Regulator, which is still rejecting 86% of Gateway 2 applications (at building control stage). An active approach needs to be taken to ensure that the BSR provides clear guidelines, advice and feedback, and to resource them to provide swift and clear verdicts.

And considerable work needs to be done around viability, so that developers and local authorities have a clear understanding of what can be delivered on individual urban sites, how much social housing can be provided from day one, and how long projects will take.

All of this is even before considering more major questions around housing. How can the myriad of documents developers need to submit be simplified? How can local authority and housing association development capacity be increased to deliver the social homes we sorely need? And what work is needed to challenge our existing model of speculative development, to modernise construction practices, and to encourage smaller sites and diversity in the housebuilding sector?

While the economic winds may be challenging for the Government, housing is its one place where it is forging a strong path. Builders are projecting an increase of new homes, including of social and affordable housing, and the industry as a whole is fully behind Labour’s plans.

But, in order to turn this mood music into a plan for 1.5 million homes, the Government needs to grasp the nettle of all causes of uncertainty, and work to create a stable environment for new homes. 

Categories
Blog Post

Survivors of Domestic Abuse need support to stay in their homes with protection from abuse – where that is their preferred option.

Government figures for 2023-2024 identified domestic abuse one of the leading causes of homelessness and as the most frequent reason for loss of the last settled home for those owed a duty by a local authority to relieve homelessness. Risk of or experience of domestic abuse was a common support need among households with children. Single Homeless Project (SHP) notes 60% of homeless adults in temporary accommodation are women. Similarly, 63% of families with children living in temporary accommodation are single parents.

In the critically underfunded circumstances of the violence against women and girls (VAWG) sector and a crumbling legal system abandoned by the Conservative administration, survivors of domestic abuse are frequently left with no option but to leave home and present as homeless. Alternatives should in theory be available to ensure their safety and ability to remain in their home without the perpetrator, but these are either not enforced, or legal funding to obtain them is unavailable due to stringent Legal Aid criteria which excludes many women.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

All too often, leaving home does not end abuse, but it can result in women losing their job, children having to change schools, and families being moved away from health, mobility and social support, when their wish is to remain safely in their home.

Women note that injunctions can be breached several times, but these are deemed ‘minor’ breaches and therefore not enforced.  Survivors without access to funds or Legal Aid are left floundering, trying to navigate the law and conduct their own legal cases whilst holding down a job, and caring for children in adverse circumstances.

Perpetrators, who know how to manipulate these systems to their advantage, continue to abuse, manipulate and harass survivors with the result that women are advised, or compelled to leave home and present as homeless.

As weeks and months turn into years due to the lack of secure, affordable accommodation, survivors are trapped in so-called ‘temporary’ accommodation. Research by Shelter found that 6 in 10 households in temporary accommodation spent more than a year there.

For women in temporary accommodation there is no equality, and there is no chance of career advancement when children are doing their homework in the bathroom, the only room other than the one they live and sleep in, with no knowledge of where they may be living in the next few weeks let alone the longer term.

What Labour is doing to address Violence Against Women and Girls

At the 2023 Labour Party Conference, Jess Phillips MP, now Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, commented that violence against women and girls is the greatest threat to women’s equality.

The Labour Government has committed to halve violence against women and girls within ten years. Recently-announced new Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPO’s) and Protection Notices (DAPN’s) are a crucial advance. Women’s Aid commented that the pilot “had the potential to protect those affected but only if properly implemented and monitored”. The Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) welcomed the announcement noting it would have little impact without a “radical transformation in the implementation of these orders”.

Figures published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) showed that there were 123,100 households in England in temporary accommodation in the three months to the end of June – a rise of 16.3% on the same period the previous year.

Alongside a pledge to “go even further to fix these challenges by building the social and affordable homes we need”, the Deputy Prime Minister is also chairing a new inter-ministerial group dedicated to tackling the root causes of homelessness.

The need to support victims to stay in their homes

VAWG sector studies demonstrate that domestic abuse is one of these root causes of homelessness. Prevention includes consistent long-term funding to the specialist sector, implementation and enforcement of orders that assist survivors to remain in their homes where they wish to do so, plus widening Legal Aid to include those currently excluded.

We are in the early days of the new Labour Government. Action is needed here and now for those survivors and children trapped in the cycle of temporary accommodation and to implement the advice of the VAWG sector on prevention. It takes courage and resilience for survivors to speak about the abuse they have experienced.  The point at which a women tries to leave an abusive relationship or to take action against the perpetrator is the stage at which she is most at risk of harm.

Unquestionably there are circumstances where it is essential for women and children to leave home to secure their safety. Refuges, VAWG sector organisations, Women’s Aid, the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA) and others are critical to survivor safety and must be adequately funded.

Where a victim has had her options explained to her by a knowledgeable and experienced specialist advisor and chooses to remain in her home, all efforts need to focus on helping her to secure that choice. Injunctions must be enforced, every survivor must have access to legal advice and funding, protection orders need to be better used and social landlords must take action against perpetrators, who need to be held to account.

‘For housing providers it makes sound financial sense to help victims feel safe in their own home but this must be victim led’ Safe Lives/Gentoo

However, the onus should not be on a survivor to leave home to escape abuse, unless that is her informed choice.  We must move away from placing the burden of escape from domestic abuse on survivors and instead hold perpetrators to account.

Instead of asking “why doesn’t she leave?” the question should be “why the hell should she?”

Categories
Blog Post

The Shared Accommodation Rate is prolonging homelessness

Image from Centre for Homelessness Impact

The Shared Accommodation Rate (SAR), the housing benefit rate available to childless, single people under 35, is creating a myriad of challenges for those seeking to move on from homelessness and for the authorities and providers trying to assist them.

Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates are not universal. Entitlements vary depending on circumstance, and people under the age of 35 are (unless they qualify for an exemption) offered the SAR – which is calculated to cover the rent of a single room in a shared house or flat, rather than, for example, a self-contained one-bed flat. But as uncovered in No Access, No Way Out, a recent report commissioned by Commonweal Housing, and authored by Becky Rice, the SAR has become a significant barrier to combatting homelessness.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Introduced by John Major’s Conservative Government in 1996, the then-SRR (Shared Room Rate) capped Housing Benefit for single under-25s at the 50th percentile – enough to cover rents of the bottom 50% of shared room lettings. Fifteen years later, George Osborne ignored the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee and raised the age threshold to 35, whilst reducing the allowance to the 30th percentile (from the 50th) of local room rent averages. The reduction of social housing stock over this period has raised the importance of private routes out of homelessness, whether they exist or not.

For single under-35s, housing options at SAR rates increasingly do not exist. As No Access illustrates, the SAR is not routinely able to facilitate homelessness move-on. Recent London analysis (carried out by Savills) found the rental market totally divorced from LHA rates:

“Annual rental growth of 6.3% in London in 2023 led to the proportion of rental listings below LHA rates falling to a low of 3.1% of total listings by Q4 2023. The recent increase to LHA rates has pushed up the proportion of listings affordable to 5.0% of total listings in Q2 2024. While a slight recovery, this remains well below 30% of the market that is intended to be affordable on LHA.”

The same challenges are being observed all over the UK. The supply shortage is also changing behaviour in real time. Landlords, particularly those that specifically accommodate tenants on benefits, have taken advantage of the tilted playing field. Some are now only renting to claimants over 35 who can access the one-bed rate. Others are going further, with No Access interviewees (particularly those in London) reporting a wave of HMO to studio conversions, whereby houses of multiple occupation (shared accommodation stock, in other words) are split up into small studio apartments, often with shared facilities. This allows the landlord to charge the higher one-bed rate to tenants, and leaves those seeking to exit homelessness on the SAR with fewer, if any, options.

Article 4 directives, which force landlords to gain planning permission for conversion to HMO, are limiting the amount of newly available shared stock entering the market. In these circumstances, homelessness service providers are fishing from an ever-shrinking pond.

The effects of this unavailability are predictable and costly. Practitioners report being forced to use supported accommodation for clients under 35, who do not need such expensive services. As one provider reported,

“[Lack of move-on] blocks our … supported accommodation beds. They’re expensive and you need to keep them for those people that desperately need them. Unfortunately, you do have a case where they’re silted up with people who can’t move on.” (p. 53).

This matched other accounts:

“For under 35s my note says, ‘Nothing available.’ We basically have to go [to] supported accommodation for those people. So, we see a massive amount, we’re [seeing] 45% under 35 and so we know that it’s much harder, nearly impossible, to house in PRS for those under 35.” (p. 27).

Three months in supported accommodation provides one with an exemption from the SAR, but having to wait forces people to suspend hopes of long-term stability, and takes up a place others would benefit more from (not dissimilar to NHS beds being taken up by those healthy enough to leave, but with nowhere else to go). Homelessness support providers even report advising those close to turning 35 just to stay put before seeking move-on accommodation after their birthday.

It’s easy to frame this challenge as an inevitable result of a national housing shortage, exacerbated by landlord opportunism, clunky framework, and urban population growth driven by internal movement and immigration. What is harder to agree on is how to respond.

A potential solution would be to abolish the SAR altogether. This would provide more stability for those moving on from homelessness. Supported housing places would be freed up for those in genuine need, and councils would feel less inclined to hire private relocation companies to send homeless people to other parts of the country with more LHA supply. But tradeoffs are inevitable – the rental market is overheated as it is, and boosting demand to any significant extent would drive further price increases, which may fuel voter backlash.

A roll back option would be to reverse the Osborne measures – lowering the age threshold back to 25 and returning the benefit rate to the 50th percentile. The risk here would be the failure to help 18–24-year-olds, with further reform on the issue probably unlikely. Other measures worth considering include a widening of the exemption thresholds to ease current backlogs and finding a way to challenge excessive use of Article 4 directives. What is clear is the need for revision of some kind, and a halt to the escalating bidding wars between councils (and in some cases, between council departments) for the dwindling number of affordable units.

As is so often the case, issues like these cannot be discussed without returning to the question of general (and publicly owned) housing supply. No Access makes a range of timely recommendations, much broader than the SAR – including the urgent requirement for new homes delivered at scale. SAR revision or abolition, and reform of the LHA more generally, must be linked to this delivery, along with the wider protection of tenants (something Labour have wasted little time on). This Government remains the UK’s best chance at easing and fixing the housing crisis, helping homeless people of all ages move on, and delivering better outcomes for renters more generally. Reform of the SAR is a necessary step in that direction.

Fraser Maclean is Policy and Communications Manager at Commonweal Housing. No Access, No Way Out, researched and written by Becky Rice with Commonweal’s support, can be read here.

Categories
Blog Post

Social housing needs the Streeting treatment

Prime Minister Keir Starmer NHS 10 Year Plan Consultation, image by No 10 licensed under CC BY 2.0

The health service is getting the Wes Streeting treatment of more finance and reform. The case for the same approach for social housing is compelling. Health and housing both determine our quality of lives. The two are interrelated, with homelessness and poor-quality housing costing the health service billions.

2024 saw the lowest Labour vote share among social renters since Ipsos began their election studies.

Also worryingly more social housing tenants said that they voted Reform than any other tenure.

Social renters were the tenure most likely to vote Reform UK

We need to convince tenants that we can make this tangible difference to their lives, by fundamentally changing the power relationship between social tenants and their landlords, drawing upon the insight that Tony Crosland offered about the inequality of decision-making power as far back as 1956 in his book The Future of Socialism.

There are two separate dialogues going on within social housing, one amongst those who manage social housing and another amongst those that live in it.

For councillors and housing professionals the issue is finance. There is simply not the money to make council housing safe and liveable, as highlighted in the Future of Council Housing Report by Toby Lloyd and Rose Grayston and the Labour Housing Group Briefing, Funding Social Housing. The issue for housing associations is that their only way to find the money for safety works is to slash their newbuild programmes, frustrating the Government’s ambition to accelerate the delivery of new affordable homes.

Conversely, at meetings of social tenants, the concern is about the culture of those managing their homes, with tenants feeling disrespected and stigmatised. Angela Rayner referenced this hurt in her 2024 Conference speech saying that she will not allow ‘people like me to be treated like this.’ Those of us responsible for decision-making in social housing think we are doing God’s work, but too often our tenants see us as the enemy.

This anger has intensified post-Grenfell. Pete Apps the author of Show Me the Bodies:How We Let Grenfell Happen has given me permission to share two photographs. The photographs contrast the residents of mixed ethnic origin who died, with the people who were questioned about their culpability who are overwhelmingly white.A representation of structural racism could not be starker.

Social housing is in the same place as the health service, most tenant satisfaction surveys report that the majority of users are satisfied, but a significant minority are not, which is not surprising given that both services are chronically underfunded. Very few people who use the health service and social housing question its existence, they just want the outcomes to be better.

What forces are feeding dissatisfaction?

The first is that housing workers are blamed for the chronic underfunding of the service we provide. We are the human face of a service that is not funded to meet the minimal expectation of tenants to live in a secure, safe and liveable home.

The second is stigmatisation. As the number of people living in council housing has reduced, an historic prejudice against council tenants has hardened into stigmatisation. Many people applying for and living in social housing have had substantial experience of disrespect, stigmatisation and racism. Those of us who work in housing need to be sensitive to these life experiences.

In his only reference to council housing Crosland wrote about how the improved standard of council housing that Labour had initiated in 1946 would reduce the prejudice against council housing. Unfortunately as the stock of council housing ages and the effects of chronic underfunding become more apparent the opposite is happening today.

Breaking down power inequality

As early as 1956 Tony Crosland worried about the power dynamic emerging in large public organisations, foreseeing the potential for those without a voice to resent those who make the decisions that impact on their lives. He described power as a “Stratifying Influence”.

Power is a status-confirming attribute, with a strong influence on collective feelings of superiority and inferiority.

Tony Crosland: The Future of Socialism page 128

He identified two forms of decision-making power, the first is the remote strategic power of those at the top of social housing organisations, who few tenants get to talk to:

Such power, being inevitably wielded to some extent in secret and without collecting the voices of those most affected, has a quality of remoteness and detachment which makes it a particularly fertile source of resentment, and hence, since the disparities between controllers and controlled are so wide of deep class consciousness.

Tony Crosland: The Future of Socialism page 129

The second is the face-to-face power of the person the tenant gets to meet who either makes or communicates important decisions. It might seem odd to the hard-pressed, underpaid worker in a homelessness unit or a call centre that they have power, but this is how it is experienced by the person who needs their help.

Another feature of large organisations is a diffusion of responsibility, which means that responsibility is usually shared, making it easier for those responsible to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. The Grenfell inquiry has highlighted the catastrophic consequences. Those on the ground argued that they were following procedures or instructions made by those higher up; conversely those at the top claimed not to know what was happening and criticised those on the ground for not exercising reasonable judgement.

Whilst Grenfell was a catastrophic event, it is common to hear from social housing tenants frustrated that no-one within the organisation is taking responsibility for sorting their problem out.

This reluctance to take responsibility was evident at the top in the previous Government, with Michael Gove criticising social housing providers, creating the Social Housing Regulator to scrutinise organisational performance, and promoting a more assertive role for the Housing Ombudsman with a focus on complaints resolution, but without providing the necessary resources to improve performance and resolve complaints.

How can transformative change be achieved?

The challenges facing Wes Streeting to transform the NHS are immense. While the NHS is hardly a simple structure, Angela Rayner’s job of persuading, incentivising and cajoling hundreds of different social housing providers to work in the national interest involves an even more complex ecosystem.

Secondly, money is tight. It is more electorally popular to fund the universal health service than needs-based social housing. However, without adequate funding it is impossible to say that the failures of Grenfell “will not happen again”, as Building Safety Minister Alex Norris promised.

There are compelling moral and political arguments for more money. The Blair and Brown Governments found £32bn over 10 years for a Decent Homes programme for council housing. The requirement is now far more pressing.

The power relationship needs to be changed. The majority of tenants are too over-committed to want to be involved in decision-making. However, they want to know that people like them have a voice and that they can go to them when they have a problem. Doing so will affect the way that organisations operate and how decisions are made.

A low-cost and quick win is to create a national body to represent social tenants’ interests, an idea suggested by Crosland to introduce a little democracy into public services. A more long-term task is to create representative bodies at local and regional levels.

A second quick win is to revolutionise the training of everyone who works in social housing, from those on the ground to top decision-makers, as mentioned by Angela Rayner in her conference speech. This must involve the discussion of the structural issues described.

A more controversial proposal is for different housing providers to come together in urban areas to form Neighbourhood Management Boards, with tenant representation. Good housing management is a placed-based neighbourhood activity. Residents are more likely to participate if they can see that they are making a tangible difference to their neighbourhood. The tenants and officers making decisions will be local and accessible. The Right to Manage for council tenants offers an example of how local management could become more formalised, with each local social housing organisation contributing a management and maintenance allowance to the Neighbourhood Management Board.

Crosland understood that cultural change cannot be dictated by national government. Tough decisions will still need to be made, some of them will not be liked by tenants at the sharp end. However, the creation of Neighbourhood Management Boards will create a structure which facilitates positive change.

When Wes Streeting was asked about his political heroes, he replied:

I guess I’m in the modernising tradition of the Labour Party, so I’ve got up on my shelf to remind myself about Crosland’s book on The Future of Socialism which I think is always worth going back to when your party’s in trouble.

Hopefully, we can apply Crosland’s insight before we find ourselves in trouble.

Andy Bates is a member of the National LHG Executive and secretary of the London Branch. He is the retired Executive Manager of a tenant managed organisation (TMO), Leathermarket JMB. He is currently a Board member of Wenlock Barn (TMO). He is a TPAS and Community Led Housing London Associate and a tutor for the Chartered Institute of Housing. 

Categories
Blog Post

How the New Zealand retirement village model might work for the UK

'Woman sitting by window' from the Centre for Ageing Better's age-positive image library

Around 53,400 older people chose to live in a retirement village in New Zealand, and 130 people move in each week. This is around 14% of the over-75 demographic nationally and retirement villages have moved from being boutique and misunderstood to a mainstream housing option for older people. For more information about the sector’s growth, market share and development pipeline, see Retirement Villages Market Review | 2024 | JLL Research

Why have villages been so successful? The village promise has four key components:

  • A warm, dry, age-appropriate place to live (houses in NZ are often large and expensive to maintain);
  • The opportunity to make new friends and try new activities;
  • A high degree of financial security (residents know to the last dollar what they pay to move in, know exactly what they’ll get back at the end, and if they’re living in one of the 70% of villages that offer fixed weekly fees, the cost of living in the village will never increase while they’re living there); and
  • A pathway to aged care if that’s required. 65% of villages have a care facility on the campus.

However, this promise isn’t free. The principal business model is called a “licence to occupy” (LTO) and consists of the payment of a capital sum to move in, the payment of a regular fee (often fixed for life) to cover village day-to-day costs, and when the resident dies or moves to care, the operator refurbishes their unit to bring it back to as-new and a new resident moves in. Once the operator has the incoming resident’s capital payment, the outgoing resident is re-paid their original capital sum less a Deferred Management Fee (DMF) that, amongst other things, is the operator’s return on investment.

Subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

This graphic illustrates the model. The resident’s capital sum is protected in the retirement villages legislation and their right to live in the village protected by contract. The consumer protection balances residents’ rights with operators’ duties and responsibilities. The key detail in this model, which enables the operator to make the promises outlined earlier, is that the resident has no ownership interest in their unit or the village, and is therefore protected from the vicissitudes of property ownership – insurance, taxes, repairs and maintenance, and so forth. For many older people, the release from the responsibilities of owning property is a major reason to move.

It’s worth noting that while 70% of villages fix their weekly fee that covers the overheads and day-to-day operation of the village, the costs the fee covers continue to increase even if the income from the fee doesn’t increase. This means that the operator directly cross-subsidizes the residents’ day-to-day overheads from the deferred management fee and any gains in re-licensing the units. Only a retirement village offers this level of financial security for older people.

Another important reason to move is the release of equity in their family home. Retirement villages charge around 70% of the average freehold selling price in the area where they’re built, which allows a resident to sell their home, move to a village and often have substantial amounts of equity to add to their retirement savings. This can make a substantial improvement in the quality of their retirement and allows them to do things they’ve always wanted to but couldn’t afford.

Where an aged care facility is part of the village, the residents get first call on a bed over someone in the community, should they need one. Over the last 10 years or so the only care facilities built have been part of a retirement village, and often the cost of providing care is cross-subsidised by the revenue (and profit) from the village. This pathway to care is another important consideration for older people, and is a key benefit offered by a village.

With the demographics on our side, the retirement village sector has a lot going for it. However, with the governing Act now 20 years old, there are calls for its review, and some stakeholders maintain there’s an imbalance of power; the operators call the shots and residents have to take it or leave it. 

In fact, the regulations encourage the development of a very flexible business models that allow residents to chose from a variety of options – price, service levels, DMF rates, sharing capital gains, and so forth. 

The government has been reviewing the legislation and recently announced that they would focus on just three issues – the treatment of repairs and maintenance, a review of the complaints and disputes regime, and encouraging operators to refund residents capital sums sooner once they move out. 

Operators are relaxed about these reforms, provided the latter doesn’t result in mandatory buybacks and the financial risks that accompany such a move. However, the proposed changes reflect innovations the RVA has already led so most operators have them well in hand.

Possible learnings for the UK

The Older Peoples’ Housing Taskforce recently released their report into an extensive study of how older people might have more choice about where they live. Recommendation Five notes the need for homes that have good age-appropriate design, are affordable, are close to where the intending resident lives and yet are attractive to housing developers.

The Taskforce’s Recommendation Eight notes the importance of offering a range of different housing types with a clear understanding of fees and costs. Their “4 Key Messages” of “Think Housing, Address Ageing, Promote Well-being and provide Inclusive Communities” are at the heart of the NZ retirement village model.

You can access the Taskforce’s report here

Retirement villages are spread across the entire country – cities to provincial and rural towns. The business model works well anywhere, provided residents have the capital sum (and even that is negotiable). Retirement village operators are also the country’s largest home builders and the Retirement Villages Association estimates that around 5,500 family homes are released annually back into the housing market. Villages are significant contributors to easing the chronic housing shortage.

The financial security villages offer residents means a significant improvement in their well-being, general health, and personal sense of security. However, only villages can offer this because the operators continue to own the land and buildings and are responsible for their maintenance and upkeep. Specialist legislation to protect residents’ and operators’ interests is an effective way to allow villages to be built, but it’s essential that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to allow different business models to evolve as the market matures.

Appendix G in the Housing Taskforce’s report includes an outline of the consumer protections in the NZ retirement village-specific legislation. It’s worth noting that this legislation was passed by the Clark Labour Government in 2003 and has generally stood the test of time well.  

The transition to care is incredibly stressful for both the resident and their family. If care is part of the village package, the stress can be much less and the transition to care is effectively seamless.

Ultimately, villages work because the residents themselves have a vested interest in making them work. Villages that are resident-led (residents manage and run the activities rather than activity co-ordinators employed by the operator) tend to be more successful, popular and encourage new people to move in.

For more detailed information about the NZ Retirement Villages sector, see the RVA’s response to the Retirement Commission’s White Paper for a legislative review.

Categories
Blog Post

Will the Renters’ Rights Bill transform the Private Rented Sector?

Image by Locksley McPherson Jnr licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The Government must be congratulated on its resolve to enact the Renters’ Rights Bill at the earliest opportunity, in sharp contrast to the endless delays to the Conservatives’ Renters (Reform) Bill which finally bit the dust before the General Election.

It is important, though, to ensure that haste does not risk loopholes in this once in a generation chance to transform the experience of renting.

Abolishing Section 21 evictions to restore the security of tenure removed by the Thatcher Government is obviously a cornerstone to transformation.  But, after more than three decades of shorthold tenancies, it will take years before renters realise that their landlord cannot kick them out, and many will continue to leave when given notice before there is general awareness that renters can once again regard their tenancy as their home.

Subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

The Bill does not introduce ‘rent controls’, though it does expand the opportunity for renters to challenge rent increases through the Property Tribunal.  Again, it will take years for renters to become aware of this, and many will remain too intimidated to act due to the power imbalance between them and their ‘Landlord’ (the title, like the relationship, hasn’t changed since feudal times). Renters may therefore have to wait for something approaching ‘affordable’ rents until the promised seismic increase in social rented homes reduces demand.

But most important of all, the Bill has the potential to ensure that renters’ homes are decent and safe. This is clearly the aim of the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook. With reference to extending Awaab’s Law to the PRS during the Bill’s Committee stage, he stated, “We need to go further and ensure that no tenant is forced to live in a home that places their health and safety at risk”.   So, bearing in mind that the most vulnerable renters who are often in the very worst accommodation and will rarely feel able to fight for their right to a decent and safe home, we must devise a way to ensure that these protections are provided from Day 1 and maintained throughout the tenancy.

The best way to achieve this is through the ‘Private Rented Sector Database’ to be introduced through Regulations, following enactment of the Bill. 

We know that landlords will be required to register themselves and their properties on the Database as a prerequisite for letting. However, details of the Database have not yet been published, but we can assume that there will be a consultation in due course.

London Labour Housing Group’s view is that, after a phasing in period, landlords must provide independent evidence of compliance with physical and management standards (based on a new Decent Homes Standard and Awaab’s Law) as a prerequisite for registration. This would include evidence of current requirements (gas and electrical safety, Deposit protection, Energy Performance, etc), plus an independent inspection report, based on a physical check of health and safety requirements. This model is based on the current requirement for owners of road vehicles to obtain an MOT certificate.

While there is broad acceptance of this model for the Database, some concerns have been expressed around the availability of suitably qualified inspectors to produce reports, and of their independence if inspectors are commissioned by landlords.

While assurances can be given to counter such concerns, an alternative approach could be considered.

This is prompted by the Government’s recent decision, in relation to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, to accredit property agents who meet objectively approved standards under the Regulation of Property Agents (ROPA).  ROPA accreditation will include letting agents managing properties on behalf of landlords, so it would be possible to exempt properties managed by ROPA-accredited agents from inspection in advance of registering for the Database. There is no data on the number of landlords who use high-standard letting agents to manage their homes, but the majority of those who do are those with the largest portfolios, so could account for around 40% percentage of rented homes.

Conveniently, and for the first time, the Bill provides for enforcement of standards under Selective Licensing, so it would be appropriate for local authorities to inspect and enforce these standards before a Licence is issued, charging fees that will cover the costs. Thus, Database registration for self-managing landlords would be restricted to those with an appropriate Licence. The increase in enforcement officers needed to ensure prompt inspections could be met by specific training for this task, based on the short course ‘Housing Conditions and Interventions’ currently provided by Middlesex University.

We must hope that this vital issue of ensuring standards is raised at the Bill’s Report Stage on 14 January, and that these important compliance issues are given further thought when the Bill passes to the House of Lords. If the Government can get this right, the private rented sector will truly be transformed.

Jacky Peacock, OBE, is the chair of Advice for Renters but is writing in a personal capacity.

Categories
Blog Post

Is there hope for housing in the Lib Dems?

Ed Davey & SSEs Paul Smith by Department of Energy and Climate Change is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

2024 has been a year of unprecedented success for the Liberal Democrats. With the party seeing a record 72 MPs elected in July, the party has managed to quickly turn around a decade of difficulties since their time in the coalition government.

With this comes genuine power. The Lib Dems chair three parliamentary select committees, most notably the Health and Social Care Committee. Ed Davey has two regular questions at PMQs, allowing him an avenue to forge a national policy platform.

The Liberal Democrats are also in power across 68 local authorities across the country, covering over 6 million people.   

This success puts the party in an awkward space, and one which the British political system struggles to accommodate, as a true third party, well in advance of Reform or the Greens, but a fair distance from the official opposition.

Where the Lib Dems go next is up for debate. Are they the party of attention-grabbing stunts and comical bar-charts? Or are they a serious contender for government, needing to flip a mere 25 seats to overtake the Conservatives?

When it comes to housing, this duality runs deep.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

The detail

The Lib Dems had the most detailed housing proposals of any party at the election, with over 500 words on their plans across housing delivery and homelessness. Their headline pledges were as follows:

  • Building 380,000 a year across the UK, including 150,000 social homes a year, majoring on community-lead development
  • Banning no-fault evictions, making three-year tenancies the default, and creating a national register of licensed landlords
  • Giving local authorities, the powers to end Right to Buy in their areas.
  • Ending rough sleeping within the next Parliament
  • Abolishing residential leaseholds and capping ground rents to a nominal fee

The full plan is available here, with fair detail on ending rough sleeping and empowering social tenants.

A starkly divided party

Many will be familiar with the Liberal Democrats’ divides over housing delivery, most notably at coming to a head at the party’s 2023 conference, where members defeated a motion supported by the party’s leadership which would have abandoned their target of 380,000 homes.

Some decry the party as a hub for opportunistic ‘NIMBYs’ seeking to oppose all new housing. A quick search of “Liberal Democrats” and “housing” reveals a slew of local opposition to housebuilding since the election, including in the New Forest and South Leicestershire.

But it also brings up cases of Liberal Democrats pushing Labour councils to increase their affordable housing targets in Lambeth and Southwark, highlighting inaction on an abandoned development in Wiltshire, and even facing down opposition to new homes while in administration in  the Cotswolds.

The party’s main housing figures, Vicky Slade and Gideon Amos, also have real housing experience, as a council leader and town planner respectively.

The Lib Dems in Parliament and the delivery dividing line

While some opposition parties like the Conservatives, Reform UK or even the Greens have hit out hard against some of Labour’s housing announcements, the Liberal Democrats have been more reserved in their approach.

In Parliament they have been openly supportive several of the Government’s measures, including welcoming the Government’s Remediation Acceleration Plan and voting for the Renters’ Rights Bill.

The main dividing line which they have so far placed has been on housing delivery. While the party is supportive of increasing housing supply, they have been openly critical of ‘top-down’ housing targets and have instead favoured a community-led approach, with a primary focus of delivering 150,000 social homes a year.

This was reflected most recently in Amos’ response to the Government’s NPPF reforms:

“Top-down planning diktats risk a surge in speculative greenfield permissions of the kind that the Minister is concerned about, for homes that are out of people’s reach. Instead, let us fund, incentivise and focus on the social and affordable homes that we need…”

This may be a popular rallying cry, but it ignores the reality of the past few years.

Opposing ‘top-down’ targets ignores the reality that when the last Government abandoned targets, housebuilding collapsed, and that the new Government’s approach to reinstating these has been followed by new starts increasing.

A target of 150,000 social homes a year, while admirable, ignores the fact that, even going by the more generous measure of ‘affordable homes’,  fewer than a third of this goal are currently being delivered. Using this goal as a reason to oppose new housebuilding in general, without a firm plan to deliver it, is pure opportunism.

And suggesting community-led planning as an alternative ignores the fact that few people outside of a hyper-engaged, largely more privileged minority, get involved in the planning system as it is.

While the Liberal Democrats’ vision for housebuilding may be a principled one, it appears out-of-place amid its largely more pragmatic approach. More importantly, it allows space for MPs, including the party’s Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper, to opportunistically rally against building more homes in their local area.

Is there real hope for the Lib Dems?

Unlike the other opposition parties, the Liberal Democrats have a genuine plan to solve the housing crisis, with a broad policy platform with several good ideas.

In order to have a real impact, however, the party needs to moderate its anti-housing opportunists and play less into the populist rallying cries of more minor parties. Most importantly, it needs to acknowledge that any housing policy needs the keystone of a serious plan for delivery, which recognises both the scale of the challenge and the need for a top-down approach.

More in this series:

Categories
Blog Post

Confessions of a baby boomer: How my generation contributed to our failing housing economy

Image from the Centre for Ageing Better's Age-positive image library

We don’t need to recite statistics to know that young people are struggling to afford to even rent the housing they need, let alone buy it. The root cause of the problem is that over the last thirty years house prices have risen faster than earnings. To break out of it we need a sustained period during which the cost of housing (to buy or rent) increases by less than people’s earnings.

The price of land

Land for housing ranges from between 47 times its agricultural value in the East Midlands to 163 times in the south-east, and more around major cities. What drives the price of land?  There are two distinct factors.  The first is its ‘existing use value’ based on the net revenues it generates. The second is known as the ‘hope value’ – the potential increase in value from any more profitable use it might have, dependent on potential changes in its planning status. 

The combination of these gives its speculative value, driving the price at which developers compete to purchase it.

Prior to the early seventies compensation to landowners in a compulsory purchase was based on the land’s ‘existing use value’ plus an incentive to sell of typically between 15% and 20%. The judgement in a court case in 1970 entitled the landowner to the full benefit of the ‘hope value’.[i]  

During the thirty years after the war New Town Corporations developed more than 30 ‘New Towns’, providing homes for 2.8 million people, and councils funded the replacement of bomb-damaged housing and slum clearance, using compulsory purchase.  The developed housing was worth more than it cost to buy the land and build the homes, roads, schools and other infrastructure. It was done at no cost to the treasury beyond meeting the cash flow requirements through borrowing which the resultant revenues were more than sufficient to repay.  The capture of ‘hope value’ by landowners brought that to a halt.  The price of building sites and consequently the cost of new development spiralled upwards, while the number of new homes plummeted. 

This was one of three factors that lead to a tripling of house prices during the seventies. The others were changes in the way property was taxed, aimed at promoting homeownership which was seen as aspirational, and the lifting of restrictions on borrowing.

Subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Taxation of housing

Until the sixties homeowners were taxed each year on the notional rental value of their home.[ii] They could offset the interest on their mortgage against it, so those with a large loan paid little if any. The tax gradually increased as rents rose and loan repayments reduced the interest payments offset against it.   The exclusion of an owner’s main residence introduced in 1963 meant rented housing became more heavily taxed than homeownership despite owners being generally better off than tenants.

A similar exemption was extended to Capital Gains Tax when that was introduced in 1965. When a home is sold the buyer pays stamp duty while the capital gain from the increase in its value is untaxed, unlike the sale of any other asset. That untaxed wealth either raises the inheritance we pass on to our beneficiaries, or inflates prices higher up the housing ladder.  At the very least stamp duty which discourages mobility should be abolished, replacing it with capital gains tax which would be unaffected by how often properties are sold. While both taxes are triggered by a sale, no matter how many times a property changes hands the tax taken on the capital gain would stay the same, based on the rise in value, while the amount collected in stamp duty goes up with every change in ownership.

The enhanced financial benefits of owning over renting meant that my generation did anything we could to get onto the housing ladder. The struggle was worth it.  In a competitive housing market, the only limitation on how much we paid was the amount we could borrow. Lending restrictions were eased at around the same time and house prices boomed. We became ‘the boomer generation’.  

Finance for home ownership

Previously, the funds that building societies could lend were limited by the saving deposits they received. Mortgages were restricted to three times a husband’s earnings plus half a wife’s. They had to be married to get it. The most a household could borrow was 75% of a property’s value, with a retention against any major repairs required to ensure that it was in good condition. The growth in house prices was limited by the loan finance available.

At the end of the seventies, the mortgage market was opened up to banks which raised additional funding from the bond markets and were less restrained in their lending. Within a generation a couple buying for the first time could borrow 90% of the value of a home on more than four times their joint incomes. 

Deregulation of banking in the ten years leading up to the financial crash of 2009 increased access to global capital enabling unprecedented growth in house prices relative to earnings.

The housing market failed to respond as a healthy market should, by increasing the supply of housing to meet the growing demand.  If more is invested in housing than is spent on construction and renovation, house prices inevitably rise.  The volume of housing being built fell in the seventies and again following the banking crisis and has never recovered since.

ONS UK Housebuilding and Nationwide House Prices since 1952

My generation’s contribution

I am part of the baby boomer generation, living rent free in a home which I own outright, having paid off my mortgage. Our generation is living longer and hanging onto large family homes with spare bedrooms while our grandchildren live in overcrowded properties. The government taxes mobility through stamp duty, while discouraging us from downsizing by discounting up to £1 million in inheritance tax on the value of our homes when we die.

Very little of the wealth my generation enjoys came from savings on earned income. Most of it is in our homes, which increased in value by far more than we paid to buy them including every penny we spent in interest on our mortgages. Over the last fifty years house prices rose at 1.6% pa more than the rate of interest we paid.[iii] 

Buying a home became a cashflow problem. It may have been a struggle meeting the costs but has been extraordinarily profitable for anyone who could raise enough to get onto the housing ladder. Homeowners profit by living rent free with an asset the value of which rises year by year.

By the time our children inherit from us they may be in their sixties with their own children becoming adults.  It will arrive too late to help meet the growing housing needs of their family. For some, it will make sense to rent out a house they inherit and do not need rather than sell it. 

A home is the only investment where the benefits are tax free.  Tax should be levied in relation to our ability to pay. Yet the housing costs of anyone who has owned their home for a few years are far lower than those who are renting, and since the mid-sixties none of that additional consumer spending power has been taxed. Most would be outraged at the thought that it might be.

The value of housing for rent derives from future rental revenues making growth of the private rental market less depended on rising property prices. Stimulating a stronger rental sector while improving tenancy terms would take some of the heat out of the housing market. 

The policies Labour is introducing are undoubtedly a step in the right direction but to tackle the fundamental problems making housing unaffordable to some whilst enormously profitable to others they need to go further. Developers will only build extra homes if there are sufficient buyers able to afford prices that make it profitable, and pause when prices fall. To achieve anything like the target of 1.5 million homes a large proportion of them will need to be for private rent supplying those unable to afford homeownership, and social housing funded by capturing hope value for the benefit of the community.  

See https://redbrickblog.co.uk for informed debate on Labour’s housing policies. In particular see  https://redbrickblog.co.uk/2019/03/evidence-to-affordable-housing-commission/ and https://redbrickblog.co.uk/2018/07/part-2-the-capture-of-hope/

[i] Under the 1961 Land Compensation Act. The case was brought be a landowner in a dispute over the compulsory purchase of land for the Milton Keynes New Town. 1970 Bernard Myers vs Milton Keynes Development Corporation

[ii] Schedule ‘A’ tax

[iii] House prices rose more than mortgage interest rates in 30 of the last 50 years, and by a median margin of 1.6% (Nationwide & BoE)

Categories
Blog Post

The Government has a plan to build 1.5m homes – but what is the plan to heat them?

At time of writing the reformed National Planning Policy Framework has been published making clear Labour’s intention to move full steam ahead to get as many homes built as possible. As Ed Miliband likes to say, the Government needs to “move fast and build things”. The Government has been equally ambitious on the energy side; GB Energy, the National Wealth Fund, and lifting the ban on onshore wind are all hugely welcome steps. It is clear that ambition is not something holding the Government back.

However there is a glaring gap in the middle of this Venn diagram and that is the decarbonisation of heating. According to the Energy Systems Catapult, heating makes up nearly 40% of the UK’s emissions and gas heating is the greatest cause of skyrocketing energy as gas prices increased by 11 times between 2019 and 2022 – responsible for 96% of the increase in energy bills, according to Carbon Brief. If we want to lower energy bills and meet our climate targets, we need to move towards decarbonised heating systems.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Despite this challenge there unfortunately seems to be a gap in the Government’s policy work. GB Energy is the Government’s flagship energy policy, but the Chair Jürgen Maier has indicated the state-owned company will only be a “power generator”, seemingly excluding the provision of low carbon heat. The 2024 manifesto only mentioned low carbon heating twice, as opposed to 19 mentions of power (in the energy sense). The £3.4bn committed towards the Warm Homes Plan in the Autumn Budget is absolutely a welcome step but only a fraction of that money will go directly to the installation of decarbonised heating systems. The Government has committed to clean power by 2030, but no such commitment exists for decarbonising heat. The Government is also yet to commit to the previous Government’s targets such as 600,000 heat pump installations and a phaseout of fossil fuel boilers.

We have seen through the debate on the winter fuel allowance payment that heating is an emotive and politically salient issue. Heat decarbonisation is not only important from a climate angle, but from a social justice angle as well. The heating sector has considerable union density across the industry, particularly through GMB-represented gas engineers. Making clear investments in heat decarbonisation now is the best way to protect those workers, by sending a signal to industry that they need to invest in the heat workforce – not in five or ten years – but now. These do not necessarily have to be sole traders operating out the back of vans, as technology like heat networks allow a proper site with real progression for those operating in the heating sector. Even better, growing heat decarbonisation technologies like geothermal offer a clear off-ramp with transferable skills for gas workers.

Clear policy support for decarbonised heating is good for the housebuilding sector as well: a stronger clean heat industry will mean more installers being hired, more heat networks being developed and more R&D funding going into building decarbonisation. By supporting the decarbonised heating sector, the Government can deliver brilliant outcomes for people around the country who desperately need a warm, green and secure home.

If we seize the heat decarbonisation challenge, we can, simply put, kill two birds with one stone. By mandating low-carbon heat network connections for properties where it is appropriate, commit to a phaseout of fossil fuel heating and investing in the clean heat workforce now, the Government can get ahead of the upcoming building blitz. The alternative is having to go back and do it all over again after these properties are built, with dire consequences for growth, workers, and the climate.

This Government is capable of being ambitious, we have seen it in housing, and we have seen it in clean power. Now we need to see the same level of ambition devoted to keeping us warm.