The revised proposal in brief
- One million additional homes over ten years across a mix of tenures, with councils, housing associations, partnerships and private builders contributing to delivery.
- Public and social housing remain part of the programme: long-term, low-interest development finance, targeted grants and public land partnerships.
- Private incentives must earn their place: support linked to verified additional homes, with measurable conditions and clawback.
- Local need shapes the tenure mix: no fixed national percentage split has been invented.
- A revised programme requires revised costing: the former all-social capital assumptions are retired, not carried across as the price of this policy.
The ambition remains. The delivery model changes.
The test is homes completed, affordability achieved, infrastructure delivered and public value—not announcements or planning permissions alone.
1. What the revised target actually means
Manifesto 1.1 sets a national target of one million additional homes over ten years. It is a national supply target, not a promise that central government will directly finance or construct every home.
“The revised national target is one million additional homes over ten years across a mix of social housing, affordable housing, shared-ownership and other intermediate tenures, regeneration schemes, build-to-rent where appropriate, and private homes for sale.”
In practical terms, the programme brings different tenures and delivery routes into one framework. Regeneration is a delivery route, rather than a tenure in its own right; the stated target is additional homes, so replacement activity must not be confused with an increase in supply.
Policy 11 in the site index sets out this revised housing ambition. Policy 13 now forms part of the same programme rather than a separate additional target.
3. Private-sector delivery
The former separate policy on private-housebuilding incentives is consolidated into the mixed-tenure programme. Private developers that meet agreed additional-housing targets may receive time-limited preferential treatment.
- Corporation Tax incentives linked to verified additional completions rather than land holdings or permissions alone.
- Business Rates or equivalent development incentives where they unlock additional supply.
- Qualifying tax treatment for reinvested development profits where the reinvestment produces additional UK homes.
- Planning-related fee or charge relief for schemes that materially exceed agreed delivery and affordability thresholds.
- Faster planning routes for schemes meeting national design, infrastructure and delivery tests.
4. What this does—and does not—carry forward
Manifesto 1.1 brings public and social delivery together with conditional private-sector incentives. It does not carry forward a separate, unqualified promise of developer dividend-tax relief.
The original reference to qualifying dividend-tax reductions is preserved in the master’s source audit. The revised operative housing text instead specifies qualifying tax treatment for reinvested development profits. No decision reinstating the former dividend relief is inferred.
Specific rates, eligibility rules, duration and fiscal effects still need to be modelled. This release does not invent them.
5. Tenure mix and local flexibility
Manifesto 1.1 does not impose an invented national percentage split before local need and financing have been modelled. National government would set the overall one-million-home ambition and minimum standards, while regional and local plans determine the appropriate mix of social, affordable and market homes.
6. Infrastructure first
Large housing schemes must be planned with transport, schools, primary care, utilities, drainage, digital connectivity and public space. Housing numbers achieved without the infrastructure needed to sustain communities will not count as successful delivery.
Related policy 12: Planning Reform — Day 11 · Proposal 10 sets out the separate planning commitment.
7. How the programme should be judged
- Homes completed: delivery rather than announcements or permissions alone.
- Affordability achieved: whether the homes meet the needs the programme is intended to address.
- Infrastructure delivered: the services and connections required by the communities created.
- Public subsidy per home: a clear account of the public contribution.
- Additionality: whether support produces homes beyond what would otherwise have been delivered.
- Quality and long-term occupancy: homes that remain useful and occupied, not just numbers recorded at completion.
These are the assessment criteria in the revised manifesto. The detailed allocation, monitoring and enforcement arrangements remain part of implementation design.
8. The old assumptions are retired
The original all-social model assumed an average public capital contribution of £200,000 per home, or £200 billion over ten years. Its indicative annual envelope was £20–25 billion. Those assumptions are retired as operative Manifesto 1.1 costings.
| Costing question | Manifesto 1.1 position |
|---|---|
| Is £200 billion the cost of the revised policy? | No. It belongs to the superseded all-social model. |
| Is there a replacement headline price? | No replacement headline cost has been invented. |
| Can every home be assigned the same public subsidy? | No. Tenure, finance and delivery routes differ. |
| What is required now? | A mixed-tenure cost model covering public finance, grants, incentives and privately financed homes. |
9. What the revised model must include
- Tenure mix and average council and housing-association loans.
- Targeted grants, borrowing costs and loan duration.
- Land contributions and infrastructure.
- Developer tax expenditure and clawback receipts.
- Homes delivered without direct public capital.
This is a manifesto proposal, not a verified government budget or an independently certified costing. The master’s wider fiscal caveats continue to apply.
10. Why the original proposal was withdrawn
My original proposal was to build 100,000 new social homes a year for ten years: one million new social homes in total. Public scrutiny and citizen involvement challenged whether that all-social scale and financing were sufficiently feasible.
I have withdrawn that original pledge. Manifesto 1.1 retains the ambition for one million additional homes over ten years, but replaces the all-social delivery model with a mixed-tenure programme. It also brings the former separate private-housebuilding incentives into the same framework.
Read The Evolution to Manifesto 1.1 · Read the withdrawn original proposal
The withdrawal concerns Proposal 09. Proposal 08: compulsory health insurance has not been withdrawn and remains open to scrutiny.
11. What remains open to challenge
- Whether the overall target can be delivered at the proposed scale and over the proposed period.
- Whether the locally determined tenure mix meets housing need and produces genuinely affordable homes.
- Whether public lending, grants and private incentives provide value for money and demonstrably additional supply.
- Whether infrastructure, construction capacity and financing can support the programme.
- What the complete mixed-tenure costing shows once the assumptions are tested.
This revision does not mean every criticism has been adopted or every delivery question has been settled. It records a substantive change following public participation and keeps the revised proposal open to further scrutiny.
Source and numbering
This page presents the supplied Day 10 · Revised Proposal 09 document, with additional site navigation.
Manifesto 1.1: Part IV, section 12 (Major Promise 10), pp. 10–11; Housing Budget 3.1, p. 22; Revision 001, p. 30.
Day 10 / Proposal 09 is the public-release identifier, not the manuscript section number. Policies 11 and 13 are the entries in this website’s original 30-policy index. The withdrawn Day 09 / Proposal 09 document is the historical comparison. This Day 10 document replaces it as the current housing release.