Shadow housing minister Emma Reynolds will today set out plans to reverse the coalition's record, which has resulted in 205,000 fewer home owners
In 2009-10, 67.4 per cent of people owned their own home. By 2013-14, that number had fallen to 63.3 per cent, and there are currently 205,000 fewer home owners than when David Cameron came to power.
The housing failures of this government are myriad, and the effects could be felt for years to come; if the current trend continues, in 2020 only 57.8 per cent of people will own their home, the lowest proportion since 1981.
The coalition has presided over the lowest level of house building in peace time since the 1920s, and the lowest level of social housing building for two decades. A record one in four young people – 3.35 million – are living with their parents into their twenties and thirties. Again, if the trend continues, by 2020 only one in five people under 25 will be homeowners – less than half than in 2010.
Today Emma Reynolds, Labour’s shadow minister for Housing, will set out Labour’s plan for recapturing the post-war spirit of home building. Speaking at the annual Sir Frederic Osborn Lecture to the Town and Country Planning Association, she will argue that Labour’s is the only plan which can restore the dream of home ownership for the next generation. Labour plan to be building 200,000 homes a year by 2020.
She is expected to say that housebuilding will be a national priority for the next Labour government, who are planning to build a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities, give local communities stronger powers to build homes, and create a major new role for local government in commissioning and delivering housing developments.
Emma Reynolds is expected to say:
“The next Labour government will recapture the post-war spirit for building new homes and match that renewed ambition with a drive to build high quality homes and great places for new communities.
“While the Tories still believe, despite their failure over the past five years, that the housing crisis will be solved by the market alone, Labour is clear that to tackle the housing crisis there must be a much more active role for national and local government.
“Under Labour’s plan, local government will take a major new role in assembling land, delivering infrastructure and commissioning housing development. But to succeed, it will be a partnership with the private sector, attracting private investment and commissioning private developers to build the homes we need.
“Labour will also increase competition in the building industry, build more affordable homes and unleash a new programme of New Towns and Garden Cities.”
Labour plan to introduce a Help to Build scheme, which will allow SMEs to access lower-cost bank lending, supported by Treasury guarantees. They also plan to give first time buyers priority in newly designated ‘Housing Growth Areas’, allowing more young people to escape the cycle of private renting.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
18 Responses to “The coalition’s appalling failure to build houses laid bare”
damon
Just because you champion it doesn’t mean that’s what we’ll get.
That was the point I first made when I said I didn’t support just filling in the lower density that already exists, without redesigning things on a larger scale.
blarg1987
Because if they build it before the houses you will have an empty hospital that is under used and seen as a waste of taxpayers money.
These things follow on because the demand is beating supply. I agree it is not an ideal solution however the alternative is perceived as wasteful.
Guest
So now you turn on it, odd that.
I also see the Barnet plan there – demolish what was there and then say “oh well” and sell it off, with a very low even “affordable” housing provision.
damon
I don’t know what you’re on about and I haven’t ”turned” on anything. I’m still against piecemeal filling in of sites on an ad-hoc basis. Like what was done near where I grew up. They just put thirty extra families who nearly all have cars into an area that has become a lot more congested in the last couple of decades.
They haven’t built any extra roads though.
Guest
You haven’t read my post, and are denying what you said now, right. As you oppose any house building at all, in practice.
Oh, and rich families with cars. That’s nice – and not what’s being talked about. But facts.
(Also, more roads rarely help, but again…)