With the local elections coming in a month political parties views on housing has jumped up the news agenda. Which is welcome. I will look at that issue below. But first a word of warning. Unfortunately heightened media attention has also led to more trivialisation of a punishing domestic policy issue. Trivialisation of an impenetrable issue is the go-to technique of the media faced by a tricky muddle of conflicting views and incomprehensible facts journalists cannot unravel. Occasionally there are exceptions. Here are two.
Inside Housing’s Jess McCabe on 1 April 2026 published a comprehensive interview with Simon Dudley. At the time of the interview Dudley was Reform UK’s housing spokesperson responsible for explaining the direction his party would take on housing policy. What made this interview so important for housing, and a credible stand-out for Reform UK is the apt experience of their spokesman, making him a rare person with an opinion based on industry knowledge as well as the politics of housing delivery. Put plainly, someone to listen to. He made several pertinent, valid and invalid observations about housing supply. For example “Think about all the human suffering of not having a home, not being able to have children, being stuck with your parents in your childhood bedroom”; to say nothing of the other shoddy consequences (unpopular new buildings, haphazardly located with no regard to the future of the area); or “….that housing costs are taking up far too much of people’s income and making it extremely difficult to afford children”; or his wish, says McCabe to talk about the impact of immigration on housing demand, without I notice mentioning the impact on housing demand of an ageing population.
Following publication of the story Dudley ceased to be Reform UK’s spokesperson. His observations that whilst the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy ‘everyone dies in the end’ caused deep offence and were described by a group representing the bereaved as ‘ignorant and callous’ according to a BBC NEWS report (Adriana Elgueta) the following day. Significantly the well regarded, and housing savvy The I Paper journalist Vicky Spratt news story of the interview (Grenfell was tragic ‘but everyone dies in the end’, says Reform’s new housing chief/Reform UK’s Simon Dudley suggested post-Grenfell safety rules have gone too far) placed the focus on Dudley’s uncontemporary language and weakly concluded by saying “Red tape! Oh, how politicians love to hate it. But when it comes to building safety, there’s no playing politics with regulation.” Whilst Spratt went on to say “There can be no doubt that Britain has a housing crisis. Nor are we building enough new housing at the pace required to solve that crisis or boost our ailing economy”, but when it came to an examination of possible ways forward out of our housing crisis there were none, simply a anodyne, if not actually unheeded “We must build high-rise homes. Yes. But they must be safe, quality homes that people can sleep easily in”.
If, as many builders and developers say, this way forward is blocked, simply costs exceed receipts, this answer is useless. So starts another decade of housing and economic stasis, delivered by those with the power to shape thinking, and the irresponsibility to walk away from homeless, the poor and the next generation battling with consequences of trivial thinking.
McCabe’s story skates over one piece of good news. He notes that “….when it comes to enthusiasm for house building, there seems to be little difference between Reform and the other parties: all agree the country needs to build far more homes”. And, perhaps with the exception of the Greens this claim is true, at least until the local elections show us that it is not what the locals want! And here is the dilemma. This what I said on another group to a frustrated member
“Your frustration is justified. Housing policy is being exploited locally across the political spectrum. Which is tragic. This sort of phoney point scoring will simply perpetuate past spatial failure. We ought to be learning that by now. No one political party has it in their gift to solve the homes deficit within one five year electoral cycle. Nor does the private sector have it in their gift to deliver land use change which has local support. Removing these deeply rooted planning conflicts needs cross-party support and generational time scales, and enlightened leadership too.”
In short, our Westminster style of confrontational problem solving no longer works if the only deliverable housing supply policies need long term, spatial consistency driven by welcoming local hosts. This truth first emerged in the Thames Valley more than one generation ago. It has not, and will not change. The longer political parties pretend that they alone have the answer the longer policy stasis will continue. In the meantime we must find a means of motivating the media to write about the real opportunities and the real barriers to change. They love conflict, superficial snap judgements and easy answers. Theses sloppy habits are the causes of years of NHS struggles as it denys errors and have little to do with the aviation industry’s ability to learn lessons from their catastrophic accidents.
One day, for the sake of the next generation we must grow up. It is time to stop discussing trivia, and start discussing delivery. If our obsession with the superficial continues to suppress objective analysis of the facts, our children’s futures will be diminished. Together we have it in our gift to solve this problem, and doing so with wins across the community.
Ian Campbell
12 April 2026
(
