What good are a million homes if they’re built badly – and in the wrong places?
Share this post:
The UK government is going to allow houses to be built too quickly, too cheaply, and in the wrong places, according to research by Vox Political.
If that happens, there is a real and growing danger that Labour won’t be solving the housing crisis – it will simply be cementing a new one into place.
This isn’t just political rhetoric. I was recently speaking to a man in the construction trade at a pub. When I mentioned Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes, his response was immediate and blunt:
“They won’t be worth living in.”
He wasn’t talking about house prices or mortgage rates.
He was talking about what goes into building a home: materials, craftsmanship, time, care.
He told me that construction firms too often rush to get properties completed, failing to allow proper time for the foundations to settle.
The result: Cracks in walls that run top to bottom. Structural weaknesses. Poor insulation. The kind of problems that don’t just cost money – they cost people their peace of mind and quality of life.
That conversation stuck with me.
So I began looking into whether he was right – whether the UK really is producing homes that are fundamentally flawed, and whether the places we’re putting them make sense.
The evidence I found was deeply disturbing.
I. Quality concerns are not isolated: they are systemic
The idea that new homes might be rushed or poorly built isn’t just pub talk – it is well-supported by industry data, independent research, and complaints from homeowners across the UK, and we may enumerate that data as follows:
1. A stunningly high rate of defects
According to a study backed by the Home Builders Federation and the University of Reading, a staggering 93 per cent of new homeowners report at least one defect in their new-build home.[1] Many report far more.
Independent snagging inspectors say the average new-build home has 157 individual issues – nearly double the average recorded just 15 years ago.[2]
These issues aren’t just cosmetic.
They include poorly fitted insulation, ill-sealed windows, faulty boilers, cracking walls, and improper drainage.
While not all of these are structurally critical, many can contribute to long-term degradation of a property and create health and safety risks for residents.
2. Settling foundations and the rushed build cycle
Structural engineers have raised repeated concerns that major homebuilders are not giving groundworks time to settle before completing buildings above them.
A house that settles after being built can shift out of alignment, causing cracks in the walls, destabilisation of door and window frames, and long-term foundation problems.
This aligns with my source’s concern: that foundations are not given time to “bed in” to the soil.
This is especially problematic when building on reclaimed land, clay-rich ground, or areas with high water tables.
3. Warranty claims and industry risk pools
In 2023, the NHBC (National House Building Council), which underwrites more than 90 per cent of new-build warranties in the UK, paid out more than £100 million in claims and earmarked an additional £147.5 million for anticipated future risks.[3]
These figures are not just statistics; they represent real households with real problems – and a system under strain.
The NHBC has also found recurring workmanship failings in its Construction Quality Reviews (CQRs), carried out across 150,000 new homes.
The reviews point to substandard installation of fire barriers, poor sealing of service penetrations, and inconsistent quality in thermal and acoustic insulation.[4]
4. Developers in the dock
Some of the UK’s largest developers have been publicly shamed for poor build quality:
- Barratt Redrow was forced to earmark nearly £250 million in 2025 to deal with structural defects across multiple developments.
- Persimmon Homes, one of the UK’s most prolific builders, was found in an independent 2019 review to have systemic failures in quality control, particularly in timber-frame construction.
- Bellway and Bovis have also faced widespread customer backlash over flooding, loose fittings, missing insulation, and sub-par finishes.[5]
II. The wrong homes in the wrong places
Even if the homes were of good quality, there remains another major concern: where they are being built.
1. Labour’s revised targeting formula: a red flag?
Labour’s new formula for assigning housing targets is based on the number of homes in an area and their affordability, rather than future population projections or employment need.[6]
While this may sound progressive – prioritising areas where homes are most expensive – it risks misallocating supply.
As economist Tim Leunig noted in Prospect Magazine, this approach is a deeply flawed proxy for real-world demand.
It doesn’t factor in infrastructure capacity, proximity to employment, or even basic viability of transport connections.[7]
2. Local councils are already pushing back
Many local authorities have pushed back against the centralised targets, calling them unworkable. They cite:
- Inadequate infrastructure (roads, schools, healthcare)
- Lack of construction industry capacity in their regions
- Environmental and flooding concerns
The result could be homes built in places where people don’t want to live, or where they are effectively stranded by a lack of local services.
3. Case study: Tempsford
The village of Tempsford in Bedfordshire has become a flashpoint.
With a current population of just 600, it is being earmarked for up to 350,000 new homes as part of a government-backed new town proposal.[8]
Locals are aghast.
There are no major employment centres nearby.
There is no confirmed funding for new schools, shops, or transport links.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and other campaigners have slammed the plan as an example of planning without foresight or consultation.
4. No shops, no schools: ghost estates in the making
A Guardian investigation revealed that thousands of homes across England are being occupied before essential amenities are in place – schools, GPs, parks, shops.[9]
One development in Surrey was occupied for over a year before any public transport connection or health service was operational.
In such cases, residents become car-dependent and socially isolated, particularly those on low incomes.
Housing becomes less a solution, and more a symptom of planning failure.
III. What needs to change
If Labour’s 1.5 million homes are to serve the British people, rather than merely enrich developers or meet abstract quotas, several changes are needed urgently.
1. Location must be based on demand, not abstraction
Targets should align with:
- Job availability and economic growth centres
- Transport and commuting viability
- Local authority infrastructure readiness
- Environmental sustainability (e.g. flood risk, greenbelt protection)
2. Build quality must be enforced
- NHBC or government-appointed inspectors should have the power to halt developments showing systemic quality issues.
- Developers should be legally required to fix faults within set timeframes, or face financial penalties.
- Independent inspections should become standard practice before handover.
3. New towns must be community-first
New towns or garden villages must have:
- Timetabled delivery of schools, health centres, shops, parks
- Proper environmental impact assessments
- Guaranteed affordable housing quotas
4. Local authorities must be empowered
- Councils must have a real say in where and how homes are built.
- Planning departments need increased funding to handle higher volumes.
- Public consultation must be genuine, not tokenistic.
IV. What comes next
This article began in a pub with a builder’s blunt warning:
“They won’t be worth living in.”
After doing the research, I believe he was right to be concerned.
We are at a critical juncture – get this right, and we alleviate the housing crisis; get it wrong, and we spend the next 30 years fixing homes built in haste, in places nobody asked for, using methods and materials nobody should accept.
So this is a call to action:
- To readers: If you work in construction, have bought a new-build with serious defects, or work in local housing policy – I want to hear from you[email protected]. First-hand accounts will help build a clearer picture and push for reform.
- To the government: This is not a partisan attack. It is a public interest plea. Before the first brick is laid, we must have safeguards and assurances:
- That homes will be built where people can live good lives.
- That they will last.
- That they will serve the country for decades, not become problems we’re forced to solve again in five years’ time.
This is not just about housing targets. It’s about the kind of country we want to live in.
Footnotes
- University of Reading / Home Builders Federation homeowner satisfaction survey (2015)
- The Property Daily, “Snagging Issues Increase 96%”, Nov 2021
- NHBC Annual Report (2023)
- NHBC Construction Quality Reviews (2023)
- Independent Review of Persimmon Homes, 2019; FT and BBC reports on Bellway, Bovis, Barratt 2023–25
- Labour housing policy briefing, 2024 manifesto; BBC News, Dec 2024
- Tim Leunig, “Labour’s Housing Conundrum”, Prospect Magazine, July 2025
- The Guardian, “Tempsford: From Hamlet to Megacity”, July 26, 2025
- The Guardian, “No Shops, No Schools: Thousands of Homes Built Without Basic Amenities”, July 27, 2025
Share this post:
Why your weekly shop is £275 more expensive — and who’s making sure you pay it
Share this post:
The average UK household is set to spend £275 more on food this year than last, thanks to relentless price rises on essentials like meat, tea, butter, and vegetables.
According to the latest British Retail Consortium (BRC) data, food prices are now four per cent higher than a year ago, and the trend has been climbing for six months straight.
So if it feels like your weekly shop is getting more brutal, it’s because it is.
The excuse: a “perfect storm”
Industry bosses, including the founder of sausage brand Heck, blame a “perfect storm” of supply issues — like avian flu and tighter livestock regulations — for pushing meat prices up.
For example, the wholesale price of chicken has nearly doubled in two years, rising from £2.85 to £5.50 per kilo.
Fair enough.
There are real global supply pressures.
But there’s a crucial question the headlines won’t ask:
If prices are rising, who’s cashing in?
You’re told these are just market forces. But ask yourself:
-
Are supermarket CEOs taking pay cuts?
-
Are food conglomerates freezing dividends?
-
Is the government stepping in to limit profiteering?
Of course not.
Retailers and producers are still making money, often record amounts — by not absorbing costs themselves.
Instead, they’re pushing those costs onto you, the consumer, and treating it as inevitable.
Real wages flat, food prices soaring
While the Consumer Price Index (CPI) sits at 3.6 per cent, food inflation is outpacing it at 4.5 per cent, with some cupboard items climbing by 5.1 per cent.
Young people, low-income families, and renters — already spending a disproportionate slice of their income on essentials — are being squeezed hardest.
This isn’t just about budgeting.
It’s about policy.
Where’s the government in all this?
We’ve heard nothing from ministers about:
-
Price controls on essentials
-
Windfall taxes on companies profiting from crisis
-
Raising benefits or the minimum wage in line with food inflation
Instead, the government sticks to the script: inflation is “cooling” (barely), and the economy is “resilient.”
But that resilience isn’t showing up at the checkout.
The big picture they won’t show you
The BRC data — and the BBC’s coverage — focus on consumer prices, not corporate profits. But the public deserves a fuller picture:
-
Nestlé made nearly £15 billion in profit last year.
-
Tesco’s profits surged to over £2.3 billion in 2023.
-
The average FTSE 100 CEO now earns 118 times more than a full-time UK worker.
Are these companies victims of a supply crisis — or beneficiaries of it?
The loop of blame
We’re told:
“We have no choice but to raise prices.”
But while food prices rise, workers are told not to ask for pay rises because it “fuels inflation.”
It’s a vicious cycle — and it’s deliberately structured to make ordinary people pay the cost, while profits remain protected.
What can be done?
If the government really wanted to protect the public:
-
It could introduce temporary price caps on essentials.
-
It could tax excess profits from food giants.
-
It could raise Universal Credit in line with food inflation.
-
It could increase minimum wage indexing to reflect real-world costs, not just CPI targets.
But none of this is happening – because in the current system, inflation isn’t just a side effect — it’s a business model.
This is what we’ve been leading up to: it means that some companies aren’t just reacting to rising costs — they’re using inflation as cover to raise prices more than necessary.
While they claim it’s about “supply shocks” or “market pressures,” their profit margins have stayed strong or even grown. In other words:
“Costs go up a little, prices go up a lot — and the difference goes to shareholders.”
This practice — sometimes called greedflation — has been flagged by economists at the European Central Bank, the IMF, and others.
But you won’t hear much about it from the government or corporate press, because it exposes a basic truth:
Inflation has become a profit strategy — and you’re the one footing the bill.
The bottom line
You’re not imagining it.
The £275 rise in food bills isn’t just some natural disaster — it’s the product of policy choices, corporate priorities, and a political class that sees rising prices as your problem to manage alone.
If you’re struggling with the cost of living, don’t just ask why.
Ask who benefits — and who lets them.
Share this post:
Confirmed: Labour is pushing 50,000 disabled people into poverty – and that’s just the start
Share this post:
At least 50,000 newly sick and disabled people are to be pushed into poverty by the Labour government’s planned ‘reforms’ to Universal Credit.
Parliament’s own Work and Pensions Committee has now confirmed what disability campaigners and welfare experts have been warning for months. The government has shrugged.
It is not a worst-case scenario, by the way – it is the government’s own projection.
And this is before it implements its delayed – but not cancelled – cuts to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) — a move that could strip hundreds of thousands more of essential support.
The Commons’ Work and Pensions Select Committee, chaired by Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, has formally recognised that the government’s remaining welfare reforms — even after some of the most controversial plans were delayed — will cause significant, lasting harm.
This is not partisan criticism from the opposition.
It is a warning from within Labour itself — from an MP with a track record of advocating for disabled people and welfare claimants.
Abrahams and the cross-party committee she leads have laid out the consequences clearly: people will be made poorer, and the policies are being implemented without the necessary infrastructure, evidence, or safeguards in place.
A calculated betrayal
Despite the government’s earlier U-turn on some of its welfare plans — including pausing proposed changes to PIP and reversing a freeze on the incapacity element of Universal Credit for existing claimants — it is pressing ahead with a massive cut in support for future claimants.
Starting next year, anyone who newly claims Universal Credit because of a health condition or disability, but who is not deemed to have “severe or terminal” conditions, will see their monthly support slashed from £423.27 to just £217.26.
That’s a loss of more than £200 per month — in many cases, their primary or only source of income.
The government’s own modelling shows this will plunge at least 50,000 people into poverty by 2030.
But rather than pause and reconsider, ministers are choosing to move forward — eyes wide open.
That is intentional harm.
The PIP cuts are not cancelled — just delayed
Much of the media attention has focused on the government’s apparent decision to drop changes to PIP eligibility, which would have seen up to 800,000 people lose out by the end of the decade.
But this is not a victory.
The government has not dropped these plans.
It has delayed them.
And the distinction is crucial.
Ministers have tied the timing of the changes to the conclusion of an upcoming PIP eligibility review.
But they have not tied the content of the changes to the outcome of that review.
In other words: the cuts are still coming.
The review is just a procedural step along the way — not a safeguard.
This is policy by stealth.
The government is softening the ground, hoping the public forgets the scale of what was proposed before it returns to implement the cuts under the cover of ‘consultation’ – if not ‘review outcomes.’
The Department for Work and Pensions says it will “co-produce” the review with disabled people — but what does that mean when the eventual policy decisions are already sketched out?
“Co-production” in name only means very little when the reality is pre-determined.
Austerity in disguise
The government claims these reforms will “rebalance” incentives within Universal Credit, suggesting that the current system discourages people from working.
But this is a false premise.
There is no evidence that cutting financial support makes it easier for disabled or ill people to work.
In fact, the opposite is true.
Removing income from people with fluctuating or limiting health conditions undermines their ability to access treatment, housing stability, or training — all of which are necessary to make employment possible.
And let’s not forget: the reforms were originally designed to deliver £5 billion a year in savings by 2030.
So this was never about improving outcomes.
It is about cutting costs – no more than that – even if those cuts come at the direct expense of people who cannot afford to lose a penny.
Keir Starmer has now even admitted that the government “didn’t get the process right.”
But this focuses on how the policy was rolled out — not what the policy is.
If the policy causes avoidable harm, what does it matter how well the process is run?
A well-managed injustice is still an injustice.
Targeting the most vulnerable: future claimants
What makes this so pernicious is that the people who will be hurt first — and worst — are those who have not yet fallen ill or become disabled.
These are future claimants, whose lives may change suddenly through accident, illness, or long-term deterioration.
They are not yet visible in the system.
They don’t appear in statistics.
But they are real people who currently have no idea that they will one day find themselves unable to work — and when they do, they will find the support they should have been able to expect has been cut in half.
How can this possibly be justified?
If anything, future claimants are even more vulnerable — facing the shock and upheaval of a newly diagnosed condition, the disruption of losing employment, the mental and emotional toll of navigating the benefits system.
To offer them less, not more, support at that point is morally indefensible.
Young people left behind
As if that weren’t enough, the government is also removing incapacity benefits altogether from 18- to 22-year-olds.
The rationale is that young people should not be “trapped in inactivity” before their working lives begin.
What kind of logic is this?
If someone is too sick or disabled to work, age is irrelevant.
Denying them financial support will not enable them to work — it will trap them in poverty and worsen their health.
The committee rightly condemned this as unjustifiable – but it’s still going to happen.
What must be demanded
The Work and Pensions Committee has recommended that the planned cuts be paused until their full impact on poverty, health outcomes, and employment can be understood.
This is the absolute minimum the government should do.
But more than that, we must demand:
-
A full and independent impact assessment of the current proposals.
-
A guarantee that PIP changes will not be implemented without clear, evidence-based justification — and that the review will be genuinely co-produced and respected.
-
A commitment that no person with a legitimate health condition will be made poorer as a result of falling ill.
This is a moment for moral clarity
We cannot let these changes be softened through spin or buried in technocratic language.
These are not reforms.
This is not “modernisation.”
This is not “making work pay.”
This is the systematic dismantling of the social safety net — delivered with full knowledge of the human cost.
The government knows.
Its MPs know.
The committees know.
We know.
And so we must speak plainly: if Labour proceeds with these reforms, knowing the suffering they will cause, then it will have no credibility left when it comes to social justice, fairness, or compassion.
We will not be gaslit into silence.
We will not accept vague reassurances while cuts go ahead behind closed doors.
And we will not stand by while the lives of sick and disabled people are treated as budget line items.
This fight is not over.
The truth is out in the open now — and we must not let it be ignored.
Share this post:
Deliberately missing the moment: Labour’s cowardice on wealth, tax and fairness
Share this post:
The UK is at a crossroads.
Public services are crumbling, inequality has reached Victorian levels, and decades of tax privilege have hollowed out both our economy and our social fabric.
Into this landscape comes a striking intervention: a group of world-renowned economists — including Thomas Piketty, Jayati Ghosh, and Ha-Joon Chang — have called on the Labour government to introduce a modest wealth tax on the super-rich.
It could raise up to £22 billion a year and touch only 0.04 per cent of the population.
It is, by any standard, a measured, technocratic, and proportionate proposal.
Labour leader Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves are already looking for ways to avoid it.
This is not a case of missed timing or political uncertainty.
This is deliberate.
Faced with a moral and economic crisis, Labour is choosing not to act — choosing, in effect, to protect extreme concentrations of wealth rather than challenge them.
It is, as former trader and inequality campaigner Gary Stevenson has long warned, a strategy that will only entrench Britain’s decline.
The experts are clear — so why is Labour silent?
The letter to The Guardian, coordinated by Tax Justice UK, couldn’t have been clearer.
Wealth inequality has spiralled out of control in Britain, and a modest levy on fortunes over £10 million could be both a fiscal and social game-changer.
Economists from across the globe urged the government to begin laying the groundwork for a new wealth tax in the autumn budget — not just for the revenue, but to position the UK as a global leader in tax fairness.
But Rachel Reeves seems poised to reject the idea.
Despite having had one full budget already under her belt — last autumn’s 2024 budget — where she avoided structural tax reform, all signs suggest she will stick to the same cautious path.
Cabinet colleague Jonathan Reynolds went further, calling a wealth tax ‘daft’ and unworkable.”
This is political theatre masking a deeper truth: Labour is running scared.
Even when presented with expert backing, popular support, and a fiscal imperative, its leadership seems more concerned with not upsetting the super-rich than in addressing a broken system.
What Wren-Lewis gets right
In his latest Mainly Macro column, economist Simon Wren-Lewis outlines three options facing Reeves in her second Budget this autumn:
-
Tinker around the edges by raising select taxes on small, targeted groups.
-
Break Labour’s tax pledge by raising income tax, VAT, or National Insurance.
-
Embark on a structural reform of the tax system — modernising it, fixing its distortions, and raising revenue in a fairer way.
Wren-Lewis — like Martin Sandbu and the IFS — argues that option 3 is long overdue.
Britain’s tax system is not just outdated; it is actively regressive.
Council tax is still based on 1991 property valuations, punishing low-value homes more than mansions.
National Insurance, meanwhile, functions as a shadow income tax that exempts the wealthy, pensioners, and landlords.
Two people with the same income — one a salaried worker, the other a landlord — can face radically different tax burdens.
Fixing these distortions would do far more than a stealth tax tweak here or a “windfall” levy there.
It would rebuild trust in the system and make taxation something people can once again see as fair.
But that would mean political risk.
That would mean taking on wealthy asset holders, older voters, and — perhaps most terrifying to Labour strategists — the right-wing press.
Gary Stevenson: ‘They’re too scared to fix it’
Gary Stevenson, the former Citibank trader turned inequality campaigner, has spent years warning that wealth inequality isn’t just a social problem — it’s an economic time bomb.
When too much money pools at the top, spending dries up, demand collapses, and the economy stalls.
Public services become impossible to fund without borrowing, and politicians are forced into austerity cycles.
In other words, exactly what Britain is living through today.
Stevenson has long argued for radical, redistributive action. And he has repeatedly highlighted the cowardice of political leaders, including Labour, in refusing to confront the ultra-rich.
Their inaction, he says, is a feature — not a bug — of the system.
Now that some of the world’s most respected economists are echoing his calls for a wealth tax, the question must be asked: Why is Labour still ignoring the evidence?
The political cowardice at the heart of Labour’s tax strategy
Starmer and Reeves aren’t being passive — they’re making a calculated choice to avoid political risk.
Pensioners vote in large numbers and disproportionately consume the right-wing media.
Southern homeowners hold outsized political weight in marginal seats.
Wealthy donors, though more quietly, still influence the tone of policymaking.
So instead of reform, Labour offers rhetoric about ‘stability’ and ‘growth’ — all while promising not to raise income tax, VAT, or National Insurance.
That leaves precious little room for serious revenue generation.
The result is likely to echo Reeves’s 2024 budget: a smattering of technical tax tweaks dressed up as fiscal responsibility.
In reality, it’s austerity by stealth.
It’s the politics of fear — and it’s leaving the door wide open for critics on the left and right to expose Labour’s weakness.
The public is ready. Labour isn’t.
Polling has consistently shown broad support for taxing extreme wealth.
The public understands, intuitively, that nurses and teachers shouldn’t be paying higher marginal tax rates than hedge fund managers or inherited wealth dynasties.
And the economic case is now beyond dispute: fairer taxation would reduce inequality, fund essential services, and stimulate real growth.
But Labour continues to operate under the assumption that these issues are too dangerous to touch.
That’s not even caution — it’s abdication.
By refusing even to consult on a wealth tax, Labour sends a clear message: the richest 0.04 per cent have nothing to fear.
The rest of us will pay more for less – again.
History will judge
Labour has a choice.
It can lead a serious conversation about fairness and rebuild Britain’s tax system for the 21st century.
Or it can duck, delay, and deflect — and watch as inequality deepens, services erode, and trust collapses.
When future historians ask why nothing changed even after the experts pointed the way, the answer may be painfully simple: Labour deliberately missed the moment.
Share this post:
First speakers announced for Peace & Justice Project’s first conference
Share this post:
The Peace and Justice Project, launched by Jeremy Corbyn, is to hold its first annual conference later this year – and has announced an initial set of speakers.
UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese and UCU general secretary Jo Grady, alongside anthropologist Jason Hickel and international law expert Shahd Hammouri, have joined the line-up of speakers and panels.
They join founder Jeremy Corbyn, Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, economist Stephanie Kelton, author Gabor Maté, NEU general secretary Daniel Kebede and journalist Peter Oborne, for two days of discussion and debate on the issues we face nationally and globally.
The conference will be taking place at the Blizard Building of Queen Mary University in London on Saturday and Sunday, September 20-21.
Ticket information is available here.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
