Whatever happened to Labour’s 1.5 million homes? The latest estimates suggest that the government is around 220,000 homes short of where it should be and that it will undershoot the final target by about 500,000.
This trend is a problem, not least because Andy Burnham’s top priority is supposed to be addressing the cost of living. As a new report from the Centre for British Progress found, hitting Keir Starmer’s original housebuilding target would reduce rents by £251 a month – over £3,000 a year.
Outside London, the figure is lower, but still significant: £612 each year for renters in Manchester, £384 a year in Birmingham and £444 in Leeds. And, of course, renters tend to be some of the most productive and also most vulnerable people in the economy: young workers.
These savings are far greater for ordinary households than any cost-of-living measure announced by the government. And, unlike the £100 off energy bills that the Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget, the rent reductions from building more homes need not cost the taxpayer a single penny: our low housebuilding rates are mostly due to a broken planning and regulatory system, not a lack of public spending.
Labour’s embrace of Yimbyism wasn’t just vibes. The government announced ambitious reforms to the planning system alongside seven ‘new towns’ and policies to make it easier to build on brownfield land, near train stations, and even on London’s Green Belt.
So why are we so off track?