Britain's housing splurge is long overdue
[LONDON] The £39 billion (S$67.7 billion) boost that Britain's Labour government has announced for affordable housing still leaves its ambition of building 1.5 million homes over five years looking like a stretch.
That shouldn't obscure the broader point that the country has underspent for decades on accommodation for its most disadvantaged. Any attempt to reverse this trend has the potential to pay for itself in wider economic benefits and even lead to a healthier private property market.
The state's retreat from providing housing began with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s and gained added impetus after 2010 with the Conservative-led government's efforts to cut expenditure and repair the public finances following the global financial crisis.
Rather than building homes, the government aimed to steer financial support to low-income households to enable them to rent in the private market or from not-for-profit housing associations. The guiding philosophy was that a more market-based approach would encourage a more aspirational society; public housing, by contrast, kept people caught in dependency.
The observed outcomes haven't been kind to this theory. The market has failed to generate adequate supply, leading to a shortfall of homes estimated at more than 4 million by the London-based Centre for Cities think tank.
Meanwhile, the presence of more former social-housing tenants competing for private accommodation has helped to drive up rents, underpinning a boom in property values that has made home ownership unaffordable for many.
A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU
Tuesday, 12 pm Property Insights
Get an exclusive analysis of real estate and property news in Singapore and beyond.
Sign Up
Sign Up
The government shelled out £35 billion in housing benefit last financial year – triple in real terms what it was paying at the start of the 1990s. And yet the number of homeless has soared, put at 354,000 people as of December by the charity Shelter.
The self-defeating absurdity of the system is that the state has abdicated responsibility at one end while retaining it at the other. Having pushed people into the private market, the central government can (as it did in the 2010s) squeeze their benefit payments to save money – but if, as a consequence, a family can no longer pay the rent and are evicted by their private landlord, it becomes the responsibility of the local authority to rehouse them.
The cost rebounds on the state. In the worst cases, for lack of alternatives, people can be placed in expensive and unsuitable short-term bed-and-breakfast hotels and hostels. Spending on these rose more than fivefold to £732 million between 2018 and 2024, according to a February report by researchers at the London School of Economics.
It's a false economy that costs British taxpayers more than it would simply to fund appropriate levels of public housing in the first place. The government could save £1.5 billion a year by investing £5 billion annually to build more affordable homes, a 2023 study by University College London researchers found. The report estimated the costs of homelessness, including housing people in temporary accommodation, at £6.5 billion a year.
This goes beyond financial calculations. The human and economic costs of housing policies must be considered. Safe and permanent shelter is fundamental to physical and mental well-being. A child living in a bed-and-breakfast hotel can't be expected to learn well at school. An adult won't be able give his or her best at work. Britain has issues with stagnant productivity, high rates of long-term sickness and economic inactivity, and poor educational outcomes for socially deprived children. How many of these comorbidities can be traced back to insufficient and substandard housing?
Addressing the problem might just, rather than fostering a culture of welfare reliance, make the UK a more productive (as well as happier) country. Paradoxically, the advent of a large-scale, state-funded social-housing construction programme could also improve the functioning of the private market. For one thing, it will relieve pressure on rents. It could also be used to spur innovation and support small and medium-sized developers that have been increasingly squeezed out over the past four decades. The UK housing market is dominated by an oligopolistic group of large developers and is resistant to change; new-build quality is often perceived as poor. Counter-cyclical state spending can balance out the boom-and-bust property cycles that smaller builders are least able to withstand.
Design of Labour's programme will be important. The government describes its 10-year funding plan as the biggest cash injection into 'social and affordable housing' in 50 years. Though there's some blurring between the categories, there's a difference. Affordable rental housing is charged at up to 80 per cent of the private market rate in the area. Social rents are generally around 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the average local rate, though this can be as low as 30 per cent in London. Only social housing is genuinely affordable because rents are set by a formula tied to local incomes, according to Shelter. This is where the need is most acute, yet social rented housing has shrunk as a share of the total.
A parliamentary committee concluded last year that England needs at least 90,000 net additional social rent homes a year, while the UCL study projected building 72,000. Even if the entirety of Labour's programme was devoted to social housing, it wouldn't come close to those figures.
In broad outline, though, the plan addresses an obvious market failure and is long overdue. As far as financial stability permits, the government should do more. BLOOMBERG
Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business and infrastructure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
UK's Starmer urges Middle East de-escalation in calls with leaders of Jordan and Oman
FILE PHOTO: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer looks on during his meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa (not in picture), ahead of bilateral talks at 10 Downing Street, London, Britain June 19, 2025. Jordan Pettitt/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo LONDON - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that Iran should return to the negotiating table and that an escalation of the situation in the Middle East is in no-one's interests in calls with the leaders of Jordan and Oman, his office said on Sunday. A Downing Street spokesperson said Starmer "agreed on the grave threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme and reiterated calls for them to return to the negotiating table" in a call with Sultan of Oman Haitham bin Tarik al Said. "An escalation of the conflict is in no-one's interests and the focus must be on de-escalation, they added," according to the readout after strikes by the United States on Iran. In a separate call with King Abdullah II of Jordan, Downing Street said "they called on Iran to return to the negotiating table in pursuit of a diplomatic solution." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
US strikes on Iran nuclear sites are real-life test of hard power's limits
A combination picture shows satellite images over Fordow, before and after the U.S. struck the underground nuclear facility, near Qom, Iran, June 2, 2025 (L) and June 22, 2025. Planet Labs PBC via REUTERS VIENNA/PARIS - U.S. military strikes overnight in which President Donald Trump said Iran's main nuclear sites were "obliterated" will put to the test the widely held view that such attacks can delay a nuclear programme but not kill a determined push for atom bombs. As Iran's nuclear programme has expanded and become more sophisticated over the past two decades, many officials and nuclear experts have warned: You can destroy or disable a nuclear programme's physical infrastructure but it is very hard or impossible to eliminate the knowledge a country has acquired. Western powers including the United States have publicly suggested as much, complaining of the "irreversible knowledge gain" Iran has made by carrying out activities they object to. "Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge," the Washington-based Arms Control Association said in a statement after the U.S. strikes with massive bunker-busting bombs on sites including Iran's two main underground enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow. "The strikes will set Iran's programme back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities, possibly prompting it to consider withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and possibly proceeding to weaponisation." Israel has also said it has killed Iranian nuclear scientists but, while little is known about the personnel side of Iran's nuclear programme, officials have said they are sceptical about that having a serious impact on Iran's nuclear knowledge, even if it might slow progress in the near term. The West says there is no civilian justification for Iran's enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade fissile purity. Iran says its nuclear objectives are solely peaceful and it has the right to enrich as much as it wants. Iran's nuclear programme has made rapid advances since Trump pulled the United States out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and major powers that placed strict limits on its atomic activities in exchange for sanctions relief. After the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions, Iran pushed past and then far beyond the limits imposed by the deal on items like the purity to which it can enrich uranium and how much it can stockpile. URANIUM STOCK At least until Israel's first strikes against its enrichment installations on June 13, Iran was refining uranium to up to 60% purity, a short step from the roughly 90% that is bomb-grade, and far higher than the 3.67% cap imposed by the 2015 deal, which Iran respected until the year after Trump pulled out. The last report on May 31 by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, showed Iran had enough uranium enriched to up to 60%, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. It has more at lower levels like 20% and 5%. The exact impact of Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and materials has yet to be determined. In addition to the enrichment sites, the U.S. struck Isfahan, where officials have said much of Iran's most highly enriched uranium stock was stored underground. One important open question is how much highly enriched uranium Iran still has and whether it is all accounted for. A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's uranium refined to up to 60%, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack there. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state TV last weekend Iran would take measures to protect nuclear materials and equipment that would not be reported to the IAEA, and it would no longer cooperate with the IAEA as before. NORTH KOREA LOOMS LARGE The IAEA has not been able to carry out inspections in Iran since the first Israeli strikes nine days ago, but has said it is in contact with the Iranian authorities. What Iran will do next in terms of its nuclear programme is also unclear. Its threat to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty hints at a race for nuclear weapons, but Iran has maintained it has no intention of doing so. The only other country to announce its withdrawal from the NPT is North Korea in 2003. It expelled IAEA inspectors and went on to test nuclear weapons. "Our biggest concern is that we end up with a North Korea scenario whereby these strikes convince the Iranians that the only way to save the regime is to go for the bomb. Nobody is bombing North Korea now, are they?" a European official said. Even if inspections continue, because of Trump's withdrawal in 2018 Iran had already scrapped extra IAEA oversight provided for by the 2015 deal. That means the agency no longer knows how many centrifuges Iran has at undeclared locations. The IAEA says that while it cannot guarantee Iran's aims are entirely peaceful, it also has no credible indication of a coordinated nuclear weapons programme. The Israeli and now U.S. strikes have already raised fears among diplomats and other officials, however, that Iran will use those centrifuges to set up a secret enrichment site, since one could be built inside a relatively small and inconspicuous building like a warehouse. "It is quite possible that there are enrichment sites that we don't know about. Iran is a big country," a Western official said, while adding that Iran could also choose to bide its time. "In two years, if Iran were to start from scratch, they would only need a few months to reconstitute a new programme and to get back to where they were yesterday." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
5 hours ago
- Straits Times
UK informed ahead of US strikes on Iran, no request for help, minister says
FILE PHOTO: Britain's Secretary of State for Business and Trade Jonathan Reynolds arrives for a cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street in London, Britain, June 11, 2025. REUTERS/Jaimi Joy/File Photo UK informed ahead of US strikes on Iran, no request for help, minister says LONDON - Britain was informed of the U.S. military strikes on Iran ahead of time, but did not receive any U.S. request for their shared Diego Garcia air base in the Indian Ocean to be used, senior minister Jonathan Reynolds said on Sunday. U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes overnight, in a major new escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to reserve all options to defend itself. Reynolds said Britain had not taken part in the strikes, though it had previously moved military assets to the region and would take "all action necessary" to defend its key allies if they came under threat. He added that Prime Minister Keir Starmer was talking to Britain's allies on Sunday. "I know often because of British military assets, RAF Akrotiri (in Cyprus) or Diego Garcia, sometimes that request is made. And this was not a situation where that request was made," Reynolds, the business and trade minister, told Sky News. Diego Garcia is a strategically important UK-U.S. military base located in the Chagos Islands. Reynolds said Britain knew about the strike in advance. "I can't tell you exactly when we did know, but we were informed, as you might expect," he said. Reynolds said that the government was in "active conversations" about chartering aircraft to get people out of the region within "hours, not days", pending the possible reopening of Israeli airspace. Britain's foreign ministry said it was preparing for a charter flight "early next week", adding that British nationals and their dependants in Israel and the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories who were interested should register their details. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
