Tag: Politics

Categories
Blog Post

Kemi Badenoch’s shift right bodes ill for housing

Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative) by House of Commons is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The 2024 general election saw the worst result for the Conservative Party in terms of share of seats and votes since its formation in the nineteenth century.

But the Conservatives’ failure should not preclude their return. Only three Conservative leaders have failed to become prime minister, and some recent polls have already put them ahead of Labour. Even a minor swing could put them back in power, with Kemi Badenoch as prime minister.

Badenoch served as Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government between the election and her victory in the Conservative leadership contest, and so we know more about her housing positions than other aspects of her views. And her approach so far demonstrates a worrying drift to the right.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Shifting right on renters’ reform

One of the biggest disappointments of the last Government was a failure to pass the Renters’ Reform Bill. In ending Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions and bringing in new standards to the private rented sector, the legislation would have been life-changing for millions of private renters.

While Badenoch served in administrations which introduced this legislation, she quickly pivoted after the election to oppose Labour’s Renters’ Rights Bill, which is very similar to the Conservatives’ Bill.

Speaking at the Bill’s Second Reading, she parroted the talking points of landlord lobby groups that the bill would reduce the availability of homes in the private rental sector, while failing to discuss where those homes would go.

This potential tilt away from renters’ rights was further reinforced by Badenoch’s pick for Shadow Housing Minister: Kevin Hollinrake. Hollinrake was founder and chair of Hunters’ estate agents until 2021, and was reported to have numbered among the opponents of his own government’s Renters’ Reform Bill in 2023.

Shifting right on housing delivery

Can building homes be left or right wing? Seemingly under Kemi Badenoch it can be, as housing has become part of her wider ideological conflict with the left.

This has manifested in her blaming left wing administrations in urban centres and the bureaucratic ‘deep state’ for a failure to build the homes we need.

The former continues a long-standing trend of Conservatives trying to disproportionately focus construction in urban areas.

This is for a brazenly political reason: Conservatives have long abandoned metropolitan voters and are happy to concentrate in these areas the disruption caused by building more homes. Accordingly, in 2021 they introduced a somewhat arbitrary 35% “urban uplift” to the 20 most densely populated towns and cities outside of London, and, in 2024 Michael Gove launched a review of Sadiq Khan’s London Plan as a way to criticise the mayor for failing to deliver enough homes.

Badenoch has also continued this tradition, attacking Khan on a similar basis in three of her eight speeches as Shadow Housing Minister.

Similarly, while Badenoch has made pleas to protect the green belt, she has simultaneously started to champion a deregulatory planning policy with measures to “roll back the environmental laws, the diversity and social requirements”, blaming the bureaucratic state for the failures to build more homes.

This is a disappointing hallmark of the Conservatives’ housing policy. While the party failed to meet their own housing targets, before ditching them entirely to appease ‘NIMBY’ backbenchers, their only real solution for the lack of delivery in urban areas has been, and continues to be under Badenoch, to blame local leaders.

Shifting right on migration

A further worrying trend of Badenoch’s tenure as Shadow Housing Minister has been a shift to blame migration for the increase in rent levels, stating that “The only way to improve the lives of [private renters] is to control immigration and build more homes, particularly in high-demand areas like Inner London.”

This is not a far cry from Reform UK’s dishonest blaming migrants for the lack of social housing. Unlike Reform’s argument, which is based purely on falsehood, there is some truth to the idea that any new entrants into the private rental sector will increase demand, whatever their country of origin.

However, this is only part of the picture. Migrants already have significant barriers to renting privately, including language barriers, difficulty finding guarantors, and Right to Rent checks, and so landlords when surveyed admit that they are less likely to rent to someone without a British passport. As a 2017 briefing from the House of Commons Library states:

“Research suggests that new migrants often enter the PRS in areas of low demand, filling less desirable property left by individuals moving into better housing. This may be because some groups of migrants only have access to low-paid or insecure work, but it also reflects variations in perceptions of standards and personal priorities.”

As John Perry notes, this also means that foreign nationals are more likely to live in sub-standard accommodation, the regulation of which Badenoch strongly opposes.

While Badenoch is still new in position, the direction of her housing policy so far demonstrates a concerning shift to the right, with renters, migrants and the environment thrown under the bus. This divisive rhetoric is simply a distillation of the arguments made by the Conservatives in government, and a worrying sign that Badenoch has learned little from the lessons of the past.

More in this series:

Categories
Blog Post

Green populism will not solve the housing crisis

Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay, co-leaders of the Green Party, with Elllie Chowns, Housing and communities spokesperson. Image by Bristol Green Party licensed under public domain

One notable moment from the 2024 general election was the surprise success of the Green Party. The party more than doubled their vote to 6.7 percent, with four MPs. This followed a string of successful local election results, which has brought the party a total of 813 councillors.

The party also came in second place in 40 seats in 2024, up from just three in 2019, and they are within a five point swing of an additional five MPs.

For a long time, the political world has treated the Greens as a curiosity with interesting but ‘out there’ ideas. But, as the party’s electoral strength builds, it is worth taking a serious look at their policy offer.

This is particularly important in the housing sector, where their proposals rely on a mix of populist myth-peddling and blunt tools to address one of the most complex crises facing the country.

Sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

What do the Greens stand for?

On housing, the Green Party Manifesto in 2024 had four main priorities:

  • A Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price Charter with new regulations for housebuilding
  • Investing into decarbonising housing
  • Delivering 150,000 social homes per year through purchasing existing homes and building new ones, including ending the Right to Buy
  • Regulating the private rental sector by allowing local authorities to introduce rent controls, ending ‘no fault’ evictions and introducing private residential tenancy boards to resolve disputes

Many of these policies are sensible, and several are being implemented by the Labour Government, including investment into housing decarbonisation, restricting the Right to Buy, and ending Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions. But the sum of these policies, alongside the Green Party’s actions outside of their manifesto, presents a worrying package which could have unintended consequences.

Stymying delivery

One notable moment of the election campaign was the refusal by the Greens’ co-leader, Carla Denyer, to support a housing target, despite being pressed on this three times by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.

This is particularly problematic given that many of the Green Party’s policies would make housing delivery harder. The Party’s ‘Right Homes etc… Charter’ includes making councils spread development over small sites, which would eliminate economies of scale by larger development. Likewise, a mandate of Passivhaus Standard on all new homes in this charter would put substantial additional costs on construction with few measurable benefits to the Future Homes Standard currently being introduced by the Government.

Government policy should, of course, promote higher regulations and help smaller builders to create a more diverse industry. But mandating these high bars is a blunt tool for a complex problem.

Similarly, while academics argue the definition and the merits of rent controls, it is relatively well-established that the sort of direct control on rent levels suggested by the Greens has a negative impact on housing supply.  

Combined with the well-publicised history of Green councillors and MPs opposing new housing in their area, this amounts to a concerted effort to stymy housing supply.

This was also shown in the one recent occasion of sustained Green Party control over a local authority when they led Brighton from 2011 – 2015. Data from the Housing Delivery Test show that, in the aftermath of this control, Brighton only managed to deliver 77% of the homes it needed in 2015 – 2018, well below the 130% average of local authorities nationally. Meanwhile, data from 2019 – 2022, after four years of Labour control, shows the council delivering 130% of the homes required by the Delivery Test.

While many on the left may not be concerned with overall housing delivery, since these are mostly market rate homes from private developers, building these homes is crucial. Not only will this have a positive impact on rent levels, but it will result in more social housing being built, since Section 106 contributions from developers are responsible for delivering nearly half of all affordable and social housing. More private homes is, for now at least, key to more social homes. 

Focusing on housing myths

Meanwhile, the Greens have often peddled myths and mistruths in order to avoid focusing on real solutions.

The party’s response to Labour’s announced planning reforms was a perfect encapsulation of this, as the Greens’ Co-leader, Adrian Ramsey, claimed that:

  • There were a million empty homes, only a quarter of these are actually long-term empty
  • There were a million homes with planning permission that developers were refusing to build while not a straight debunk, a report by the Competition and Markets Authority showed, while developers do engage in a degree of ‘land banking’, this is largely due to uncertainty of a steady supply of homes, a symptom of our broken planning system which Labour seeks to reform.
  • That developers intentionally build over-large ‘executive homes’ the average newbuild home is in fact 20% smaller than its counterpart from the 1950s.

Similarly, the Greens’ manifesto included a completely redundant pledge on making developers pay for local infrastructure, which they already do through Section 106.

This was also reflected in Denyer’s answer when quizzed in the aforementioned Laura Kenssberg, where she said:

“The problem is that in so many parts of the country what we’re seeing being built is not what people need. For example what we see are large, out-of-town developments of luxury, executive homes, 4, 5, 6 bed, double garage, and yet no bus service, no doctors or dentists, no more school places. And to be honest they’re not affordable to most of the people living in the area.”

That a key part of a national political party’s housing messaging contains such blatant myths is worrying, and an irresponsible injection into the political discourse.

The allure of populism

But why focus on these areas, rather than have a discussion about the solutions needed?

In part, it may be because the Greens know that their policy platform is not yet one for national government, and so is more of a political document. Rather than providing solutions, it is instead a powerful tool to point fingers and identify ‘baddies’ that their voters can rally against.

This is exactly what its manifesto seeks to do. By advocating for rent controls, impractical or redundant development standards, and action on empty homes, it implies that all of the faults of the housing crisis are down to its ‘villains’, greedy landlords, overseas buyers and corner-cutting developers, and that regulating their activity is all that is needed to fix it.

Opposition allows minor parties the luxury of an incoherent policy platform, but the Greens’ success merits them being taken more seriously. And by playing such obvious political games, they are taking their voters for fools.

Categories
Blog Post

The Renters’ Rights Bill holds promise, but beware the tailless rats

Roupell St / SE1 by Images George Rex is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

“The best laid schemes of mice and men, go often askew”; a warning a century and a half ago by the poet Robert Burns, on how even our most well-intended ideas may fail or falter by virtue of unintended consequences.

It is a parable that perhaps should have been heeded 100 years later in Hanoi, French Indochina (now Vietnam). As rat populations in the city ballooned beyond control amid the construction of a new sewer system, the French colonial rulers devised a solution: a bounty programme. For every severed rat tail – proof of an eliminated rodent – the government would pay a small fee to the exterminator.

Colonial figures soon realised the oversight in their rush to quell the crisis, however. Criminal enterprises had shifted their focus to farming, as the city’s shadowy suburbs became the breeding ground of rats and a new source of income. The result was a city now overrun with more rats than ever – most of them tailless.

This analogy is not without cause. The case for reform in the private rented sector has been mounting for some time, and has been spurred after hundreds of seats went from blue to red over the summer. The new Labour Government has signalled its commitment to renters, armed with a strengthened Renters’ Rights Bill and a haste to act.

Sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

But as the Bill passes to Committee Stage, Parliament must recognise the risk of unintended consequences.

The end of Section 21 has always been the centrepiece of this legislation. But even this – as detailed in a recent report we supported from our colleagues at the Renters’ Reform Coalition – runs the risk of a rise in illegal evictions by criminal landlords.

The speed of this Bill is commendable, but caution must persist. Those watching the Second Reading will have noted the Secretary of State’s refusal to commit to publishing an impact assessment. Given the wide-ranging impacts of the Bill, failure to produce one is unwise.

We are, however, greatly encouraged by the announcement of the Bill’s public consultation. Our contribution concerns one key issue: Ground 6A.

Ground 6A is a proposed mandatory ground for eviction that would see renters removed from their homes with no defence to the claim, in instances where a landlord has breached legislation.

The aim of Ground 6A is to provide landlords with a route to vacant possession in order to avoid a range of sanctions that could be imposed by local authority enforcement teams where a breach to housing law has been made and also, theoretically, to offer renters protections from the health and safety hazards or criminal landlord behaviour.

The Ground supposes that, should a local authority decide that a landlord’s leasing of a property is unlawful, that landlord will be subject to further fines or sanctions until the tenants are evicted, which under the new regime they cannot be without Ground 6A’s existence (unless the landlord decides to sell).

Take Red Brick’s short reader survey

However, in reality, it is Ground 6A itself which will force landlords to evict renters or face fines. If evicting renters was the only way to comply with enforcement action and such an eviction was impossible, the landlord would clearly have a ‘reasonable excuse’, which in the Housing Act 2004 provides a complete defence to all of the potential offences they might be charged with.

Once the option to evict tenants because of enforcement action exists, such a reasonable defence completely disappears and eviction becomes the only option, even when tenants have nowhere else to go or when the property is in good condition.

Thus, in effect the worst criminal landlord behaviour is paid for by the renter necessarily losing any tenancy rights whatsoever – a moral and logical contradiction to the intentions of the Bill.

This, therefore, will create an enormous incentive for the worst-offending landlords to evict at no fault of the renter: the very problem that the abolition of Section 21 – one of the core principles of the Bill – is seeking to remediate.

But while this potential policy outcome seems nonsensical and punitive, it is far from the only consequence.

From evidence we’ve gathered, we know it is commonplace for landlords in the shadow private rental sector to routinely warn renters that the council will evict them should they complain. This is spurious and arguably a form of coercion, and without an amendment to this Ground, encourages this kind of exploitation and fatally undermines the whole purpose of the Bill: to protect renters from criminal landlords.

Just when local authorities need their powers of enforcement enhanced, this would likely diminish the effectiveness of their enforcement strategies as the worst conditions are pushed underground.

Prior to the Government’s Amendment 1 to the Bill, Ground 6A would shift the burden and costs of providing appropriate housing away from the non-compliant landlord and onto either the renter or the local authority, with costly temporary accommodation the likely destination. The amendment will order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant where possession is obtained on Ground 6A.

An improvement certainly, but insufficient in real terms too. For one thing, the possession order is not conditional on the compensation payment being made, so many landlords will simply not pay the compensation in our view.

This would be an offence against natural justice: a landlord is in breach of the law but neither the renter, nor the local authority enforcement teams, are incentivised to pursue action because either, if not both, are faced with the social and financial consequences that should rightly fall to the landlord. Renters are thus faced with the question: do they seek action but face homelessness or continue to live under the criminal conditions of their landlord?  This is not the renters’ justice we expected.

Within the wider framework of the Bill – much of it enormously positive – it may feel finicky to focus all of our attention on the ‘small print’ of Ground 6A. But this, like Hanoi’s rat programme, could create far reaching and unintended consequences, with both renters and local authorities incentivised not to act. The criminal landlord, meanwhile – whose lies are now emboldened by law –  is free to act nefariously and with impunity.

Given the breadth of this Bill, and its public prominence, the new Government must heed the lessons of Hanoi. We do not wish for the Renters’ Rights Bill to leave the Government holding redundant rattails with only hindsight.

Categories
Blog Post

The Autumn Budget: What is in it for housing?

The Chancellor visits Liverpool by HM Treasury is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Today was a first in a number of ways. It marked the first Labour budget in fourteen years, and the first budget ever delivered by a female Chancellor.

But it is also the most ambitious set of measures for the housing sector in quite some time, with a number of policies contained designed to get Britain building, deliver the next generation of social housing, and address some of the stark inequalities in the housing system as a whole.

Investing in delivery

The past few years have seen a slump in affordable housebuilding, particularly in the areas of highest need, with the number of homes started by London-based housing associations down by 92% this year. This is due to a number of reasons, including the increased cost of building, and also a focus on the sector’s existing stock after the passage of much-needed regulation including Awaab’s Law and the Building Safety Act.

It was therefore pleasing to see that one of the headline announcements from the Budget was a £500m top-up to the Affordable Homes Programme (AHP). This was a programme started under the last Government to deliver £11.5bn of funding to the affordable housing sector from 2021 – 26.

The additional £500m represents a 10% per annum increase in the value of the fund from 2025-6, which will be particularly useful given the aforementioned pressures on registered providers, and should hopefully allow them to top-up existing project funding as well as starting new ventures.  This funding is also boosted by the confirmation of a five-year rent settlement for social housing providers, under which their rents will be able to increase by CPI +1%. This will provide much needed certainty to the sector after years of more haphazard policymaking.

What’s more, this budget saw additional funding dedicated towards more general housing delivery, including:

  • £3bn in support and guarantees to increase the supply of homes and support small housebuilders.
  • £128m to new housing projects to support the deliver of 33,000 homes
  • A £36m investment in the planning system to boost local authority skills provision, including recruiting the 300 new planners promised in Labour’s manifesto.
Sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

Bringing existing homes up to date

The UK famously has among the oldest and leakiest housing stock in Europe. This is consequential for a number of reasons: consumers’ bills are higher, buildings emit more carbon, and homes are worse for residents’ health.

This budget saw a clear effort to address that, with a £3.4 billion investment into the government’s new Warm Homes Programme as part of the Government’s mission to bring all homes up to EPC C by 2030.

This programme will be transformational for consumers. It will significantly reduce bills and with it emissions from the built environment, and much of the retrofitting work entailed will have knock-on benefits for resident’s health.  

Particularly welcoming was the £1bn dedicated to cladding remediation – this has been called for by those trapped in unsafe blocks and will meaningfully accelerate the removal of dangerous cladding.

Severely restricting the Right to Buy

The Right to Buy, the policy which enables council tenants to buy their homes at a discounted rate, has often been criticised as an unhelpful drain on social housing at the time when lists of people applying for social housing are at their highest. Since discounts were increased by the coalition in 2012, this scheme has accelerated to seeing 10,000 – 12,000 homes lost per year, which are often difficult to replace.

After a review over the summer, this budget saw the government confirm their intention to heavily reduce discounts for the Right to Buy scheme, alongside increasing the time period for a which a tenant has had to live in, and providing additional exemptions for newly built council homes.

This not only undoes some of the worst reforms made under the Coalition Government but places brand new restrictions on the Right to Buy, and so there is hope that sales may dip even below the rates of 4,000 – 5,000 seen in the latter years of the Blair-Brown Governments.

It has also been confirmed that councils will keep 100% of the receipts from sales, making it easier for them to build new homes to supplement those lost from the scheme.

Fill in our reader survey

Taxing housing more fairly

Finally, the budget sought to change the perverse incentives which help to drive inequality in the housing market. At present, many landlords buy up property in the private rental sector as an investment, and happily admit to seeing themselves more as investors than as professional landlords. Similarly, those who are at the lucky enough to own their own homes are able to pass a substantial amount of the value of that home to their children upon death, dividing Britain starkly between those with family property and those without.

This budget saw moves to amend this inequality, with stamp duty rates for second home and capital gains tax increased, while income tax thresholds will be unfrozen from 2028. This marks a substantial change in the tax system to prioritise those seeking to get onto the housing ladder at the expense of those who earn more than property, either as a property owner or as a landlord, while supporting those who derive income from work.

Welcome progress, but more funding will be needed

All of the money delivered in this budget is welcome, and sorely needed. But more will still be needed to achieve the government’s housing goals.

The National Housing Federation has estimated that £4.6bn per year will be needed to deliver the step change in affordable housing needed to meet Labour’s manifesto goals, nearly double of the programme inherited from the Tories.

More investment is also always welcome in directly preventing and tackling homelessness, and in reviving the Supporting People Programme ended by the Tories, but which was estimated to generate £2 for every £1 spent in supporting social housing residents.

Ministers have indicated that this is only the start of Labour’s plans to drive investment in the economy, and we will have to look to the Spending Review taking place over the winter for signals of what departmental budgets will look like in the coming years. Key priorities will be ensuring that the Local Housing Allowance and housing benefit continue to be uprated so that those at the sharpest end of the housing crisis have the support they need.

But the sector must continue to call for these changes and the spending needed to support the government’s aim of ending the housing crisis.