Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Balls calls for £6bn building plan

Labour leadership contender Ed Balls has called for an extra £6bn to be invested to build an additional 100,000 affordable homes in a major new programme of house-building.

Balls was joined by wife Yvette Cooper – the shadow work and pensions secretary – for the first time on the campaign trail when they visited a new housing development in central London to highlight his plan.

He argued that the Government should fund a rapid expansion of house-building from a £12bn “windfall” available because state borrowing for 2009-10 came in at £155bn - lower than Alistair Darling’s forecast of £167bn in the March Budget.

The shadow education secretary believes his plan could create up to 750,000 jobs in the private sector, boosting economic growth as the UK and global economic recovery remain fragile, and tackling the urgent shortage of decent affordable housing.

He admitted that Labour’s pre-election plans to build 176,000 social homes over four years were “too cautious” and acknowledged that the party was “late in recognising the importance of building more homes and more affordable homes” while in office.

A massive boost in house-building would “exemplify the economic alternative we need right now, and expose the myth that cuts can somehow produce jobs and growth”.

“The truth is that whilst we made progress, Labour leaders over several decades never paid enough sustained attention to housing to make it the priority it deserved. That must change,” Mr Balls said.

Readers' comments (1)

  • Building affordable homes MUST NOT mean constructing cheap over populated slums.

    As an example, is 6 people in 103 sq metres adequate ? or 4 in 75 sq m ? suitable ????.Oh and stacked FIVE high with no lift ...

    see http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?id=qJ12802 for waht I mean ... OK its at the bootom of my street, BUT the whole area is up in arms against it - but it seems someone promised someone ...

    I live in a cottage of 130 sq metres with one other person. Before that i lived on my own in a flat of 65 Sq metres - altho a couple and a child could live in it ok.

    But that is what we are doing ... the Victorians, especially in Glasgow built large higher ceinged dwellings because they realised that a well housed work force brought more profit.

    Now it seems the trend is to be reversed ...

    The standard "Council House" was reasonable size, with a garden. These properties now sell for a good price since Thatcher gave them all away ... to create a new [conservative voting] middle class.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs