Poll shows voters have huge housing demand amid 'charter for greed' warning
Polling by YouGov found people are three times more likely to want the Government to build more social housing than encouraging developers to build more private homes
Voters are three times more likely to want the Government to build more social housing than encouraging developers to build private homes, new polling shows.
Figures show 58% want ministers to set a target for the amount of social housing included in plans to build 1.5million homes by 2029. According to polling by YouGov data, 48% of the public say that the government should focus on building more social homes. Just 14% said the government should encourage developers to build more private homes.
It comes as the government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill returns to Parliament for its third reading this week. Green MP Ellie Chowns told The Mirror that without an explicit social housing commitment, the Bill is a "charter for developers' greed".
She said: 'A place to call home is the foundation of a good life. But right now a secure home is out of reach for too many people – rents are spiralling, families are struggling to afford a place to live, and over a million people are stuck on housing waiting lists.
"But instead of tackling the crisis head-on by building the social housing we need, this government is writing a charter for developers' greed, giving them carte blanche to bulldoze over communities and nature in order to build luxury homes only the richest can afford.
"As a result, big developers will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are locked out of affording a decent home." The landmark bill, put forward in March, will set out how the delivery process for critical infrastructure will be streamlined.
Deputy PM Angela Rayner said at the time: "We need to reform the system to ensure it is sensible and balanced, and does not create unintended delays - putting a hold on people's lives and harming our efforts to build the homes people desperately need.'
A spokesman from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) said: 'The government inherited an unprecedented housing crisis, but we will get Britain building again and deliver the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation.
'Through our Plan for Change, we are providing an £800 million top up to the Affordable Homes Programme and a £2 billion down payment on further funding, while our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill will drive housebuilding to meet our stretching target of 1.5 million homes.'
:: YouGov polled 2,241 adults between 2 and 3 ::
'This isn't how we should be fixing the housing crisis'
By Ellie Chowns, Green MP for North Herefordshire
A place to call home is the foundation of a good life. But across the country, for too many people, just keeping a roof over their heads is a struggle.
This Labour government came into power promising to fix this and finally tackle the housing crisis. But instead, they're writing legislation that would give big developers a blank cheque to build pretty much whatever they want, wherever they want – no matter the cost to nature, and with no guarantee that new homes will be affordable.
We know what the result will be: more luxury housing in out-of-town developments that only the richest can afford, while everyone else is still priced out of home ownership, falling behind on rent, or stuck on housing waiting lists.
This isn't what the public want. On the contrary: Brits are three times more likely to want the government to focus on building social housing, than on encouraging developers to build private homes.
And it's not what this country deserves. Everyone has the right to a warm, safe, affordable home - and it's the government's duty to deliver it.
That's why I'm demanding that the government use the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to restore Britain's social housing - by setting targets for building homes for social rent, and ensuring these homes are zero carbon and fit for the future.
It's time to ask Ministers: will you build the homes we need, or sell us out to developers' greed?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves faces crisis as cabinet conflicts threaten to block spending plans
Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces a crisis as cabinet conflicts threaten to block her spending plans, with disagreements over proposed cuts to housing and police force budgets. Yvette Cooper and Angela Rayner are pushing back against budget cuts, leading to a stalemate with the Treasury just 48 hours before Reeves is due to unveil the spending review. Cabinet minister Peter Kyle refused to rule out real-terms spending cuts to the police force and housing budget, while the Ministry of Housing is reportedly resisting such cuts. The social housing sector is warning of a potential crisis if funding cuts proceed, with concerns about a "cliff edge" in building more homes and councils already running deficits on housing budgets. Senior police chiefs have cautioned that Keir Starmer's pledge to cut crime will be unattainable without significant investment, citing new online threats and pressures from prison overcrowding.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves must do more than hope for the best when it comes to paying for Labour's spending
R achel Reeves has an unenviable task as she puts the final touches to the government -wide spending review she will unveil on Wednesday. It will be a defining moment for the Labour government as she sets out departmental spending limits up to the next general election. The headlines garnered in the run-up to the chancellor 's big day are misleading. We have been promised £15.6bn for local transport projects, mainly in the North and Midlands; £4.5bn a year for schools; £22.5bn a year for science and tech, and £187m to bring digital skills and AI learning into classrooms and communities. While all are worthy, the government is playing a rather cynical game. Some of its pre-announcements stem from the extra £113bn of capital spending for which Ms Reeves created room last October by sensibly changing her fiscal rules so investment projects do not count towards her target to balance revenue and spending by 2029-30. However, her determination to stick to her fiscal rules to prevent a wobble on the financial markets means that Wednesday's statement will impose a squeeze on day-to-day budgets. Although overall spending will rise by an average of 1.2 per cent a year on top of inflation, big increases for health and defence will mean real-terms cuts for other budgets, possibly including the Home Office (which funds the police), housing and local government. So there has been a bruising round of negotiations between the Treasury and ministers such as Angela Rayner, who is responsible for housing and councils, and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary. During a media round on Sunday, Peter Kyle, the science secretary, did not rule out real-terms cuts to the police and housing. While the squeeze will technically be less severe than the austerity over which George Osborne presided from 2010, the danger for Labour is that it will feel like austerity 2.0 for many voters. Labour backbenchers are well aware of this and, after the party's poor results in last month's local elections in England, have pushed ministers into a U-turn on Ms Reeves's disastrous decision to means-test the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and extracted a promise from Sir Keir Starmer of more measures to combat child poverty, possibly by easing the two-child limit on benefits. There could also be a tweak to the £5bn of cuts to disability and sickness benefits hurriedly announced in March. The government must prioritise the fight against child poverty; without intervention by ministers, it would rise significantly over the five-year parliament, which would be an indictment of Labour. Ms Reeves must find a way to make good her promise in her article for The Independent last week to ensure ' every young person can fulfil their potential '. Admittedly, that will not be easy, given all the conflicting pressures on her to spend more. Although Wednesday's statement will not be a Budget, Ms Reeves should do more than rattle off a list of spending commitments without making clear where the money will come from. There is already a risk of doing so on defence. The strategic defence review unveiled last week is based on the government's ambition to raise defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP in the next parliament but it has not yet allocated the funds to go beyond a rise from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent by 2027. The UK will come under pressure to commit to 3.5 per cent at a Nato summit later this month. Ms Reeves should also provide clarity on which pensioners will receive winter fuel payments in the coming winter. The about-turn has been slow and messy, to the consternation of Labour MPs. In responding to such pressures, the chancellor and prime minister have cited the economy's 0.7 per cent growth in the first quarter of this year but there is no guarantee that will be maintained. They should not lose sight of the need to balance higher spending with genuine public sector reform. There will be a limit to how much can be achieved through 'efficiency savings'. The suspicion is that, in spending more on defence, winter fuel payments and child poverty, Sir Keir and Ms Reeves are willing the ends without providing the means. They should level with the public about how their sums will add up. For now, they may be tempted to adopt a Micawberish approach in the hope that the fiscal picture improves by Ms Reeves's second Budget in the autumn. Again, that is far from certain: more holes might be blown in her headroom against her rules by an uncertain global economic outlook in the age of Trump 2.0 and the Office for Budget Responsibility downgrading its optimistic forecasts for productivity growth. Unless she changed her rules to allow more borrowing, the chancellor would then have to implement tax rises or spending cuts or a combination of both. When things might get even worse, the chancellor needs more than a strategy of hoping for the best.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Government needs the can-do mindset I experienced in the Army to push change through fast
Government moves too slowly. That's not just the fault of the current government or the last one – it's the system. Slowed down by bureaucracy. Paralysed by 'can't-do' figures. Obsessed with process over progress. I come from a background of delivery. In the Army, working in a 'human intelligence unit' – liaising with agents and special forces – we had to move from first gear to fifth in an instant. Lives depended on it. Getting ahead of the enemy, protecting our people and achieving results was the mission – not talking it to death. Confirming the location of a high-value target, whilst also ensuring they were alone and targetable, or identifying the precise site of an improvised explosive device factory, required creativity and a determined mindset – a willingness to take calculated risks to save lives and win. When I worked in counterterrorism at the Ministry of Defence, delivery wasn't optional. We built a culture of 'can-do'; creative, risk-aware and focused on action. It wasn't about perfection. It was about progress. Government could learn a lot from the mindset of the finest military in the world and the departments that work every day to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. An unstoppable political will must go hand in hand with a mindset of delivery. I think back to our counterterror planning meetings. The mission? To stop terrorists attacking our great country. No timewasters. Just serious professionals putting ideas on the table, pulling them apart, war-gaming every outcome, then locking in a plan and going all-out to deliver. That mindset – challenge, rigour and rapid execution – is what the system of government has desperately lacked for decades. Too often, it's delay by design. Endless consultations. Five-year strategies that take ten. Pet projects blocked by internal turf wars. Take the Lower Thames Crossing: more than £1.2 billion spent before a single spade in the ground – all because of drawn-out decision-making and red tape. Or the A9 dualling project in Scotland – promised by 2025, now pushed back to 2035. Ten years of drift. These delays are not acts of God. They are failures of will. The truth is, Whitehall needs reform. There are dedicated, brilliant people across the civil service – but too many are trapped in a system built to say 'no'. Risk aversion is often rewarded, not challenged. Delivery is too often deprioritised in favour of process, and meaningful reform is blocked by a sprawling web of arms-length bodies and quangos that diffuse responsibility and stifle urgency. We need a leaner, more focused state – one that empowers departments to move at pace and is held accountable for outcomes, not paperwork. That means streamlining quangos where appropriate, ending duplication, and changing the mindset within government itself. Ministers must be prepared to challenge officials – not to attack, but to sharpen decision-making and force clarity on delivery. Wes Streeting 's approach to the NHS offers a blueprint. He's made clear that, as health secretary, he expects faster delivery, more accountability, and a culture that doesn't settle for 'this is just how things are done'. Abolishing NHS England shows a steely commitment to the change he expects. But reforming structures is only half the battle – changing the culture is the real prize. Government must operate with a sense of mission, not maintenance. The British public doesn't care whether a successful policy comes from Bevan or Thatcher. They care that it works. That it's delivered. We need to strip out the ideology and face complex problems with a solutions-based mindset. Let the evidence lead. Move fast. Be willing to make mistakes in the name of making progress. And above all, get things done. Because there's serious work to do.
