The changing political climate brings new risks and challenges for social landlords: how to engage with new political leadership who might not align with their organisational ethos and values.The last local elections were seismic. Reform UK now controls 24 councils outright with a majority in a further eight and the mayoralties of Greater Lincolnshire and Hull & East Yorkshire. For many housing associations, along with their local authority counterparts, Reform are now the local leaders, with control of planning processes, allocation policies and responsibility for homelessness, social care and more.
Polling shows around a quarter of the country would lend Reform their votes at the next election, meaning that unless something changes they are in contention to be the biggest party in parliament next time the nation votes.
This means that for some landlords, and for those representing them, engagement has become inevitable. How they engage, however, is not.
At a major real estate conference this year, Reform were everywhere. So were some Greens, Lib Dems and a significant number of Labour and Conservative spokespeople. The problem wasn’t so much that they were there, but what they had been given a platform to say. And to say without any visible challenge.
I was in one session where the Reform politician had proudly proclaimed his solution to the housing crisis to lie in “population control” to an audience of housebuilders – don’t worry about supply when we’re going to deport the demand seemed to be the undertone. When questioned by a young woman on how the aforementioned population control would work when prominent Reform politicians were threatening childless women with taxes, he clarified that he did not mean the “British population”.
We then descended into sloganeering – British homes for people whose grandfathers had fought in the wars! Without realising the role of the Commonwealth in boosting the numbers of the British army.
While hands had anxiously been wrung and frustrations made known when the Green politician on the same panel had mentioned rent controls, there seemed to be less interrogation of the mental gymnastics at display here. The upset members of the audience seemed largely to be contained to young women.
The chair did not intervene or clarify. The panel also largely ignored the sentiments, with only the Conservative councillor lightly suggesting that Reform concentrated on measures within its control to address the housing crisis.
An isolated incident you might think – until the next morning when I’d been at another panel with a Reform policy expert who proceeded to mention the twin levers of deportation and ending climate change by simply wishing it away as part of the critical pathway to addressing the nation’s need for housing.
Again, he was not challenged by the chair or the other members of the panel.
I travelled home surprised, annoyed and upset.
What had last year been fringe views, funny sometimes in their lack of coherence and bizarreness, were becoming mainstreamed in professional environments.
We increasingly see housing leaders posing for photos with significant Reform politicians.
I get the need to engage.
But I urge those leaders to consider how this looks and feels to those in parts of your communities who already have to fight for representation.
One minute they see local councillors calling for Nigerians to be melted down to fill pot holes, people from Pakistan to be shot on the spot, or calling the holocaust a hoax.
The next, the industry seems to be standing side-by-side with their leaders. And without challenge.
Our values mean very little if we don’t live by them when things get tough.
Without careful planning, it demeans the value systems most housing associations put at the heart of their operations. It sends alarming messages to ethnic minority staff and tenants, who might be wondering what the rise of the racists means for them. Perhaps most insidiously, it further legitimises extremist views and degrades discourse.
How then should social housing leadership approach the question? There is clearly a line to be tread between safeguarding the intrinsic values of the organisations and principle of social housing itself, and the further necessary debate and communications with political leaders.
Of course, this has already happened across the pond to our American counterparts. Progressive organisations have generally adopted four rough strategies:
Much of the literature on the subject speaks about the dangers of anticipatory obedience or forward compliance, and institutions who have surrendered their power before they were forced. The message there is clear: don’t do that.
Instead, strategies must include an incisive and truthful analysis of risks, looking at hedging against the future in line with the central mission of social housing.
This could look like:
The resulting actions may involve a combination of all four strategies of compliance, delay, resistance and alternatives, depending on what and when.
Communications can then be carefully developed around them, based on facts and clear on what the organisation wants to say publicly and when.
Political leaders do have a lot of power, and influencing them will be important. But so is maintaining your ethos and long-term strategic value in the era after them.
Organisations like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU in the US know this. There is probably no amount of compliance which would have saved them from budget cuts, and they did not therefore try. ACLU have had a 7000% increase in funding from private donors since the last presidential election and Planned Parenthood increased its donations by 40 times.
Work is also happening in the UK. In Essex, we have seen local leaders and institutions building alliances, sharing resources and admirably engaging with their new leadership, while not crossing the line into deference.
This is what the sector must look to and build on.
It is not just immediate funding or policy decisions at stake.
As Dave said in his song, The Boy Who Played the Harp:
“I sometimes wonder, “What would I do in the next generation?”
In 1940, if I was enlisted to fight for the nation, or
In 1960, if I had to fight for the rights of my people
And lay down my life on the line so my grandkids could live a life that’s peaceful
What we are all doing in this generation is going to set the course of history for our society.
As leaders in a critical sector, that should be the key consideration.
Would you like to speak to a member of our team?
Just submit your details and we will be in touch shortly.
Fields marked with an * are required
