Campaign 10
Build Homes Worth Living In
Don't just count homes. Build places people can build lives in.
Britain needs more homes. But hitting a national housing number is not enough if those homes are unaffordable, badly built, unsupported by infrastructure or followed by years of arguments over serious defects.
The campaign in 30 seconds
- —Government commitment: The Government has committed to delivering 1.5 million homes in England during this Parliament.
- —Latest evidence: Official indicators estimate 392,400 net additional homes were delivered between the start of Parliament on 9 July 2024 and 14 June 2026.
- —Our test: Track quantity, affordability, tenure, infrastructure, quality and remediation together.
- —Success looks like: More people living in good homes in functioning communities, not simply a larger national completion number.
Credit where it is due
A commitment of 1.5 million homes is measurable. That means citizens can track it. The latest official estimate represents more than a quarter of the overall target. That progress should be acknowledged, while continuing to ask whether the pace of delivery is sufficient.
Good news should survive politics too.
Housing is more than supply
The 2026–36 Social and Affordable Homes Programme prioritises social and affordable housing, with at least 60% of programme homes expected to be Social Rent.
Private renting in England has also changed substantially following Renters' Rights Act reforms taking effect from 1 May 2026.
And building-safety remediation remains an active programme, with thousands of buildings being monitored for unsafe cladding remediation. These should not be treated as unrelated announcements.
The Homes Worth Living In Scorecard
Track:
Infrastructure counts
A housing development is not complete simply because the houses are standing. People need transport, schools, healthcare, utilities, green space, shops and community facilities.
Where infrastructure is promised, citizens should be able to see whether it arrived.
Quality counts
Building quickly cannot become an excuse for building badly. Developers should be accountable for serious defects. Consumers should have clear routes to remedy.
And government remediation programmes should be judged by the number of homes actually made safe.
What we are asking government to do
Adopt a Homes Worth Living In Standard combining:
- 01Supply + Affordability + Quality + Infrastructure + Accountability
- 02Publish a national scorecard against the 1.5 million-home commitment.
- 03Require major publicly supported developments to show clearly what was promised and what was actually delivered.
What we are not proposing
Britain cannot solve a housing shortage while allowing every individual objection to become an effective veto over development.
But speed and quality should not be enemies.
What would change our mind
- —If evidence shows a particular planning or quality requirement adds significant cost while producing little public benefit, we should be willing to change it.
- —Likewise, if faster planning produces poor-quality housing, inadequate infrastructure or unresolved defects, speed alone is not success.
Policy in Practice
Housing policies frequently create effects outside their immediate objective. Planning liberalisation may increase development but create infrastructure pressures. Greater tenant protections may improve security while also affecting landlord behaviour or rental supply. Developer requirements may fund affordable homes and infrastructure while influencing development viability. These are empirical questions and should be treated as such.
Track:
Ask:
- —Did the policy actually produce more homes?
- —Were those homes affordable?
- —Did rents respond?
- —Did infrastructure keep pace?
- —Did development quality change?
- —Did the behaviour of landlords or developers change?
Compare the alternatives
We apply the same test to every party: is the proposal costed, independently verified, and does it define how success will be measured?
Current Government
The Government remains committed to 1.5 million homes in England during the Parliament. Its Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–36 prioritises affordable housing, with at least 60% of programme homes intended for Social Rent.
Expected benefit
More homes — particularly Social Rent homes — could reduce waiting-list pressure and improve affordability over time.
Potential trade-off
Delivery requires substantial subsidy, land, construction capacity and infrastructure. Faster planning must still maintain quality and ensure transport, schools and healthcare keep pace.
Conservatives
The Conservatives propose abolishing Stamp Duty Land Tax on primary residences.
Expected benefit
Lower transaction costs could make moving easier and reduce the upfront cost of buying a home.
Potential trade-off
If supply remains constrained, part of the tax saving may feed into higher prices. The Treasury would also lose Stamp Duty revenue.
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats propose a legal target of 150,000 social homes a year, greater council control over Right to Buy and stronger future-proofing standards for new homes.
Expected benefit
A much larger social-housing programme could expand access to lower-cost, secure homes. Stronger standards could reduce future energy and overheating costs.
Potential trade-off
Delivering 150,000 social homes a year would require substantial and sustained public investment, land, construction capacity and local authority capability.
Reform UK
Reform proposes 50,000 new affordable homes a year for British workers, claiming the programme can be delivered without new taxes or government borrowing.
Expected benefit
Additional affordable housing could reduce pressure on waiting lists for eligible households.
Potential trade-off
The funding and delivery assumptions require independent testing. Nationality or work-based allocation rules would also change who can access scarce social housing and may face legal or administrative challenges.
Green Party
The Green Party proposes 150,000 new social homes each year, ending Right to Buy, local rent-control powers and stronger energy-efficiency standards.
Expected benefit
More social homes and higher efficiency standards could reduce housing and energy costs while preserving public housing stock.
Potential trade-off
Ending Right to Buy removes one route into ownership. Rent controls need careful design and monitoring because they may affect landlord investment and rental supply.
Where there is common ground
All five approaches accept that Britain needs more homes and that affordability is a serious problem. The disagreement is mainly about how many social homes to build, whether to end Right to Buy, how to fund the programme and how to balance supply with quality and infrastructure.
Britain on Purpose: The Test
Homes Completed → Social Housing → Affordability → Rents → Ownership → Infrastructure → Quality → Public Cost. Don't just hit a housing target. Build somewhere worth calling home.
Don't just hit a housing target. Build somewhere worth calling home.