Does Burnham stick to anything he says? Now PM waters down pledge to spend £39bn on council housing – as he keeps Starmer’s plan instead
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Andy Burnham has scaled back an earlier pledge that the government's entire £39billion social and affordable homes programme would go on council housing, after the first funding allocations followed Sir Keir Starmer's original approach rather than the fully council-led model Burnham had described. The Government confirmed initial allocations to build more than 70,000 homes across England, with 60 per cent for social rent and the remainder delivered through housing associations and other "strategic partners", prompting Conservative accusations that Burnham had failed to keep a commitment made during his by-election campaign for the Makerfield seat.
More than £2billion of the initial funding is earmarked for mayoral areas outside London, with over £16billion still to be distributed as the 10-year programme continues, while the Greater London Authority is set to make at least £6billion available separately. Regional breakdowns include £529million for 4,400 homes in Greater Manchester, £441million for 4,000 homes in West Yorkshire, and £445million for 3,400 homes in the North East. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner defended the plan as matching Burnham's ambitions, while critics noted the funding had been "backloaded" beyond the current spending review period.
- Burnham's full council-housing pledge was watered down to a mixed model
- 70,000+ homes planned, 60% for social rent, via councils and housing associations
- Tories say funding is "backloaded" past this Parliament, avoiding near-term cost
New here? Start with this
Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, had said during a recent by-election campaign that a £39billion government programme for social and affordable housing should go entirely towards new council housing. This put him at odds with the approach already set out by Sir Keir Starmer's government, which planned for the money to be split between councils, housing associations and other bodies.
The £39billion fund is meant to help tackle England's housing crisis by building more social and affordable homes, with ministers including Housing Secretary Angela Rayner and Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook overseeing how it is allocated. The first tranche of funding, covering more than 70,000 homes, has now been confirmed, with the majority for social rent and the rest delivered through housing associations and similar partners, rather than council housing alone.
This matters because it highlights a gap between a senior Labour figure's public pledges and the government's actual policy, at a time when housing supply and waiting lists remain a pressing political issue across England.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Burnham's original all-council model argue that council housing offers greater security of tenure, closer democratic accountability and lower long-term costs than provision through housing associations, which can carry higher rents and weaker local oversight. They see his pledge as reflecting a genuine ambition to reverse decades of decline in local authority housing stock, and view the shift towards a mixed-provider model as a retreat that risks slower, less locally controlled delivery and dilutes a promise made directly to voters during his by-election campaign.
The case against
Defenders of the government's mixed delivery approach argue that relying partly on housing associations and other strategic partners is the more pragmatic route to building homes at scale and pace, since these bodies already hold land, expertise and development pipelines that many councils lack after years of reduced capacity. They point out that 60 per cent of the first-stage funding is still directed to social rent, arguing this meets the substance of Burnham's ambition on affordability and volume, while a rigid council-only requirement could have created bottlenecks and delayed homes reaching people on long waiting lists.
More coverage
Business Celebrity Entertainment Government Markets Politics UK World