Prefer us on Google
August 9 2026 - 8:00am
Kemi Badenoch has discovered 230,000 homes. Better still, she has done it without laying a brick, upsetting a council planning committee or coming across a new species of great crested newt.
The Conservatives say banning foreign nationals from social housing could free up 228,144 homes for British families. Existing single tenants caught by the policy would have six months to leave their tenancy. In a country with 1.34 million households on social-housing waiting lists, this sounds almost like supply.
Social housing is secure, subsidized and scarce. Being British should confer priority when allocating shared resources, particularly those intended for the vulnerable. Average social rent in England is £129 a week against £250 privately; in London it is £171 against £393. It is a valuable benefit for the state to bestow.
But Britain does not hand council accommodation to anyone who happens to arrive. Most temporary migrants are already excluded, while the foreign nationals who do qualify are largely people whom the state has granted settled status, refugee status or another protected right to remain. Nor do they dominate new allocations. Only 11% of new social lettings go to non-UK nationals. Some of those — notably people with EU settled status — would remain eligible under Badenoch’s new proposal. The overwhelming majority of new lettings are already going to UK nationals, so a prospective ban leaves most of the underlying shortage exactly where it found it.
To get anything resembling 230,000 homes, Badenoch has to reach backwards. Existing tenants who qualified lawfully would lose their social housing. They would not, however, be required to leave Britain. Instead, they would be expected to find alternative accommodation. Demand does not disappear — it changes tenure. The result is a round of musical chairs where nobody leaves the game.
Reform UK has been eating into the Conservatives’ Right flank on immigration, and Badenoch has reached for one of its most visible promises. In June, Nigel Farage promised British-only social housing too, only he went further, suggesting a three-month deadline to find private accommodation and possible deportation for those who fail to leave. This followed an existing proposal to abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain.
The Conservatives have borrowed Reform’s language of exclusion while ignoring its appetite for the consequences. Badenoch wants the same photograph — a British family receiving the keys — without the much uglier policy required to make the displaced household disappear from Britain’s housing demand. If the migration-skeptic argument is that Britain has too many people chasing too few homes, there are only two obvious ways to change the ratio: fewer people or more homes. The Tory policy changes neither. Some displaced households will rent privately, some will move in with relatives, and some may end up in temporary accommodation, where England already has more than 130,000 households. The destination changes; the need for a bedroom does not.
It’s also a confused policy. Helen Whately, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said this week that making Britain your home should be “earned by working, paying tax and integrating”. Yet the proposed classifier is not work, tax or integration, but nationality. Many long-settled residents with Indefinite Leave to Remain can apply for British citizenship. Naturalization costs £1,709, plus a £130 ceremony fee. For an eligible tenant facing the loss of a secure social tenancy, that can look remarkably cheap. A policy designed to remove foreign tenants may instead remove the foreignness from the tenants.
Citizenship can decide who receives a scarce social home. Immigration policy can decide how many people are in the country. Housing policy determines how many homes there are. By confusing the three, Badenoch has fallen into the trap of discovering 230,000 homes without building any.
