Starmer out, Burnham in? What does leadership change mean for housing?
When I started writing this on a sunny Sunday on the South Coast, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer was considering his future. As I finish it on Monday, I am listening to his resignation speech. I can only guess what will happen when nominations open in July, but it looks likely that Andy Burnham will be thinking of a very different future over the coming months.
Whenever there is a change of political leadership, especially at the top of government, the leaders of organisations face an assessment of the changes it will bring and must anticipate what it will mean, not just now but for decades to come.
In recent years, these assessments have been coming thick and fast, thanks to six prime ministers in less than 10 years (not to mention the number of housing secretaries and ministers), which is challenging for a sector like housing that thrives on stability.
Through all the drama, often the overall difference of that change in leadership will be small but some will leave a long legacy of either success or difficult choices.
Through his Makerfield campaign, Mr Burnham has made noises towards leaving a long legacy. He has talked of the need to go back to before the 1980s. In an interview on housing recently, he said: “Since the 1980s, housing has increasingly been treated as a commodity to be bought and sold… If you see housing purely like that, you end up with a housing crisis – and that’s exactly where we are.”
While many will agree with this, it is worth pointing to the enormous changes in the Treasury’s funding of housing over that period. In the late 1970s, housing received over 6% of government spending; recently it’s hovered between 1% to 2%.
While Mr Burnham last year suggested £40bn of borrowing to build new council housing, as many have pointed out, he will face the same challenges that Sir Kier and Rachel Reeves have had to balance the books, keep the markets happy and not stifle growth.
Alongside a doubling of health spending, the move in government spending in housing has been from capital to benefits, which over time has led us to nothing short of scandal. Annually the nation’s spending on housing benefit is likely to be nearly 10 times the capital spending through the Social and Affordable Housing Programme.
Half of that public spending goes outside building public benefit and into the pockets of private landlords, some of whom still don’t provide decent homes.
That should be the first place we look for funding, but to challenge Treasury models and get building again at the scale needed, innovation will be required, as well as a long-term consensus that gives civil servants the confidence to really enact changes that go beyond a five-year government term.
Despite the strength of his victory in Makerfield, the reality of a more fractured political world, with five parties not two, means consensus may be harder to find. To make real change, Mr Burnham will need to work with the Greens, Lib Dems, Conservatives and Reform UK if he is to solve the housing crisis.
“While Mr Burnham last year suggested £40bn of borrowing to build new council housing, as many have pointed out, he will face the same challenges that Sir Kier and Rachel Reeves have had to balance the books”
All parties recognise that there is a housing crisis, but agreement on what to do about it remains elusive. Building that consensus will take significant political skill and the will to have challenging conversations. As housing associations, we should look to support these conversations wherever we can. At Housing 2026 this week, Sovereign Network Group and Inside Housing have invited senior housing figures from all five major parties to find areas of common ground.
Finally, it is worth reflecting that Sir Kier’s government, for all its faults, was trying to do the right thing in housing, but it wasn’t able to overcome the structures in time or tell a coherent story.
To succeed and leave the legacy he wants to, should he become prime minister, Mr Burnham will have to build consensus with the opposition and make tough decisions with the Treasury.
I wish them both well.