Labour's new towns plan means home ownership no longer pipe dream for millions of Britons, says Angela Rayner
Writing exclusively for The Independent, the deputy prime minister offered 'hope' to ' generation rent ' and those forced to live with their parents because they cannot afford to buy their own home.
It comes as she and Sir Keir Starmer visit one of 100 potential sites for one of the new towns which have been put forward for consideration on Thursday.
A decision is expected in six months time with an expectation 10 to 12 will be chosen and shovels will go in the ground before the next election in 2029.
Ms Rayner wrote: 'It's to restore hope to people who cannot afford to buy or rent. To give hope to 'generation rent' - the young people stuck living with their parents because there is nowhere else for them to go and for whom home ownership is out of reach.
'Decent housing is not a privilege – it's a right. And in our new towns, our aim is for at least 40 per cent of homes to be affordable, including social housing.'
The towns will be a mixture of social and private housing and have been inspired by the ones built under Labour's post Second World War government led by Clement Atlee.
Ms Rayner said: 'The vision was Clement Attlee's, inspired to act and rebuild after the devastation of World War II.
'His Labour government stepped up to create entire towns from scratch - homes, jobs and communities to transform the lives of millions of working families and the economy.
'Now we're bringing that energy back, to create new towns of the future. It's high time – in fact, it's long overdue given the housing crisis that's squeezing people to breaking point.'
The new towns then included Milton Keynes, Crawley, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City.
'The post-war towns weren't perfect, but they showed what can be achieved when you put people first,' said the deputy prime minister.
'Today, millions of people live in New Towns, and they remain a crucial driver of growth.
'Our ambition is that our new generation of New Towns will provide hundreds of thousands more homes.'
Ms Rayner promised that the new towns will have full amenities, transport links and parks while the government insists that they will be community led in design and 'look good'.
She wrote: ' Britain 's new towns movement was one of the most exciting and ambitious projects in our country's history.
'A huge and lasting achievement. But I can boil down the secret of its success in four words. It put people first.'
She added:'It's high time – in fact, it's long overdue given the housing crisis that's squeezing people to breaking point.
'Drawn up by the independent New Towns Taskforce, they are in the best tradition of the originals – enduring success stories like Stevenage and Crawley, Welwyn and Hale.
'As their first residents realised, they could look forward to a better quality of life.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
How war became a route to growth for the west
The UK Government's Strategic Defence Review in June promised expanded submarine, weapon, and drone production, integrated digital command, at least six new munitions factories to 'create more than 1000 new jobs' (perhaps familiar from the 'scrapping Trident is anti-worker claim against Scottish independence in the mid-2010s). It represents an increase of already-above-Nato-baseline defence spending to 3%, and, crucially, a 'whole-of-society approach' that involved 'widening participation in national resilience'. READ OUR DEFENCE MINI-SERIES This is necessitated, the review says, by multiple new hybrid threats – a staple rationalisation since the Cold War, as in David Cameron's 2013 claim that nuclear weapons were needed 'more than ever'. Against a background of population economic punishment, the tellingly-named 'sovereign warhead programme' needed another £15 billion – roughly the size of the 'black hole' agonised over by Labour last year, and also of the current nuclear overspend stated in that year. There has been some grim technocratic inevitability to this, particularly since 2008. As asset prices gradually became inflated by central bank money channelled into stagnant investments, leaving governments struggling to deliver growth and protect their own legitimacy, classical capitalism was relieved of any lingering responsibility to deliver actual improvement, and the very temporality of progress could be inherited by crisis realism. Or as the review enthusiastically puts it, 'constant innovation at wartime pace'. War becomes a final route to growth – one marked by the 52% increase in the BAE Systems share price between January and July. Moreover, post-2000s rearming has lacked much of the protest once coming from civil society. This has a lot to do with US tech giants combining investments in infotech, AI, and aerospace (Alphabet, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin), their war on attention, and their siloing of individuals, reducing their ability to share moral concerns. Attention capture has increasingly accompanied the rearming, directing even those far up the political chain away from long-term thinking (the scenario of Don't Look Up). Covid lockdowns were a great accelerator of this, with Silicon Valley's sifting and directing of communication – in an economy Mackenzie Wark has called 'vectoralist' – automatically extracting rent through proprietary algorithms, turbocharging inequality, effectively wrecking the economy for the population, and forcing the turn to war for growth. Post-2008 algorithmic silencing helps explain the eerie quiet over permacrisis as stability. As numerous nuclear commentators have noted, there is a paradox in claiming to defend democracy by concentrating means of apocalyptic violence in fewer and more secretive hands. Such a purely performative democracy is an admission of societal dysfunction and some kind of addiction. It leaves a defence realism that, in contrast to the Cold War, struggles to imagine apocalyptic war and so raises it as a political issue. Benoit Pelopidas has described a need for depictions of nuclear war keep civil society involved, and avoid a sleepwalk into extinction. For Elaine Scarry, this sleepwalking is the very function of 'out-of-ratio' weapons, which eclipse citizen participation in defence, and effectively 'delete the population'. Even George Orwell noted something similar after the 1945 atomic demonstration on the recalcitrant beyond of Atlantic commercial empire. Under the new Pax Americana, fighting had effectively been put out of populations' reach, 'whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance'. This submission to a cybernetics of extinction is what EP Thompson called exterminism, with technocratic governments finally captured by arms manufacturers promising growth and so political legitimacy. UK governments duly held on to nuclear weapons as a financial stabiliser even after the end of the Cold War, and through to the 2020s removal of the previous warhead cap, and as Timmon Milne Wallis describes, 'voted against, blocked or boycotted virtually every other multilateral nuclear disarmament initiative'. In British ideology, nuclear securitisation has always meant financial securitisation. Chancellor Alistair Darling, who would later front the anti-Scottish-independence organisation Better Together, reacted to the 2008 financial crisis by promoting [[Trident]] renewal as public investment. Keir Starmer echoed that this year when he described nuclear rearming as crucial to drive growth. But way beyond this, British authority has always depended on progressively shifting physical stakes in conflict to economic arbitration, writing populations out of society-as-economy. The 'disarming' enacted on 1740s Jacobites is also the disarming of Scarry's 'thermonuclear monarchy', in which the Lockean social contract degrades into the apocalyptic whims of small economic elites. A fully abstracted violence as a 'peaceful' proxy of citizen defence was even a pillar of a British welfare state – in fact from as early as 1941, when the Blitz-era MAUD Committee insisted atomic weapons had to be completed and used. Absolutised defence extended war togetherness even through the original 'austerity', finding funds for nukes and joining the whole population as a single target. In 2024 Starmer could comfortably appropriate this welfare terminology to describe Trident's ''triple lock', a term previously used for state pensions. This homeliness remains an issue in defining the militarisation of the economy as a problem. As Margaret Thatcher understood, the idea of the economy as a defence against politics and populations is deeply British, and can command patriotism even from a sceptical population. Mindfulness of the real violence being abstracted as growth will be crucial to any civil involvement. Michael Gardiner is author of Empire of Deterrence (2025), published by Repeater
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Tommy Sheppard: Why an SNP majority is crucial in 2026
Until just a few months ago, they were accused of not mentioning independence enough. Now they are criticised for talking about it too much. Seems they can't win. John Swinney has had much to say on the topic in recent weeks. In various speeches, he has said independence must be central to the next election, that voting [[SNP]] is the best way to get it and that the party must work with others to achieve its goal. Thoughts on working with others, especially the idea of a new constitutional convention, next week. For now, let's look at Swinney's ambition to win a majority of seats for the SNP in May 2026, and his contention that this is necessary to move forward to independence. READ MORE: SNP members set for second meeting to challenge Scottish independence plan In one sense, a party leader setting out to win a majority of the seats in an election is hardly contentious. That's sort of the point. Smaller parties look daft if they ask you to believe they'll do that from a position of negligible support. But for a party that has done it before and nearly done it several times since, it's not an unreasonable aspiration. It would surely be more remarkable if the leader of the [[SNP]] declared that he didn't intend to win a majority. How tall an order is it, though? Frankly, who knows? The Holyrood voting system was devised to be more proportional than Westminster's. It is a bit. But not completely. And when voting intentions are volatile and opinion is fractured, the capacity for distortion is amplified. The majority of seats up for grabs next May are elected by first past the post. There will be at least six major parties contesting most of them, seven if Jeremy Corbyn's show gets on the road. The traditional Tory and Labour blocs will be divided by serious challengers. In these circumstances, any party that can command north of 30% support has to be a hot favourite to win. So, a party that can get the votes of a third or more of the electorate and whose support is evenly spread could well win 65 constituency seats. They would get none off the lists but that would be a majority. It is very unpredictable, the margins between winning and losing are small, and things could just as easily go the other way. But a majority is possible. It is, after all, just over a year since Labour won a UK General Election landslide on 34% of the vote. More controversial is the SNP leader's claim that only if he gets a majority will this be seen as a legitimate mandate to offer Scots their independence. Other, smaller, pro-independence parties have been outraged by the suggestion, instead advocating that all that is required is a majority of members in the Parliament elected on a commitment to self-government no matter what their party. Actually, both have a point. It is true that if the Parliament has a pro-independence majority and votes to demand that people get a choice on the matter, then that should be respected by the UK Government. But it is undeniably the case that any such demand will be harder to refuse if it is made by a party that has just won a clear majority. Especially if it is then bolstered by representatives from other parties. John Swinney cites historical precedent as evidence. The only time the UK accepted that people should have the right to choose was when the SNP won a majority in 2011. They have denied it ever since, even with a pro-indy majority in the Scottish Parliament. Salmond won a majority for the SNP in 2011 It doesn't, however, follow that they would do so again. A majority of those running the UK think Cameron made a mistake in accepting the outcome of the 2011 election as a trigger for a referendum. They are determined not to repeat it. They are building a barricade against Scottish aspirations for independence, founded on denying the legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament to do anything about it. READ MORE: SNP under fire over public energy firm as Wales launches wind projects And that is where we are. In the middle of a fight for legitimacy, for relevance, for the right to self-determination. That is why we need a strategy that doesn't stop at getting people to vote for an independence party or parties, but which sets out how those elected can mobilise Scotland behind the right to choose their future. That will require cross-party co-operation, civic engagement on a scale not seen since 2014 and stable, determined leadership in government. But there can be no question that the bigger the majority the principal party of independence has, the easier that task will be. And no question also that the converse is true. If the SNP are unable to form a government and a Unionist coalition triumphs, the cause of national autonomy will be gravely set back.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs
It comes as the UK Government has gone all in on the idea of growth through military spending. It was one of the key tenets of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) – which was published in June and accepted in its entirety by Labour. 'The SDR will help make defence an engine for growth—boosting prosperity, jobs and security for working people across the UK,' the document read. READ MORE: Keir Starmer's defence plan will not make UK safer, says ex-UN adviser Keir Starmer quickly announced the [[UK Government]] would open six new munitions factories, build up to 12 new nuclear-powered submarines and invest £15 billion in nuclear warheads – as well as a raft of other commitments. 'Through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people,' the Prime Minister said. In Scotland, meanwhile, Ian Murray launched a £250 million investment at the base housing the UK's nuclear weapons – HMNB Clyde at Faslane – in July, to be spent over the next three years to improve infrastructure at the site. The Scottish Secretary described the spending as a 'defence dividend' as he also talked up the economic impact of investing in the sector in Scotland, including through the Clyde 2070 programme, which will see billions pumped into the industry in the coming decades. But the extent to which this investment will positively impact Scotland and create jobs across the UK is a matter of debate. It's not that jobs won't be created, James Meadway – who is the host of the podcast Macronomics – told The National. Defence minister John Healey 'Look. If the government spends a bit more money on something in the real world, it will – other things being equal – mean that there is more economic activity,' the economist, who is also a member of the Progressive Economy Forum and a former economic adviser to the shadow chancellor, said. 'There'll be a bit more growth somewhere, there'll be a few more jobs somewhere. That's kind of what's going to happen.' He added: 'The trouble is it's just not very many for the obvious reason that if you look at military investment now and the kind of things that arms companies are producing – this is all really high tech stuff,' he said. 'This is not just churning out millions of shells or bullets. This is stuff that you use a great deal of high technology to produce, and that is also quite high technology. And if you are producing millions of shells, it's also now very capital intensive, rather than labour intensive, due to big machines making them.' Meadway added: 'And if you've got lots of high-tech stuff, like you're making drones and you're making quite sophisticated drones. It's capital intensive. You don't have many people employed doing it. You don't actually create many jobs and investment. 'So, as a starting point, if the Government is saying military spending, ramping up defence production will create more jobs, this is a bad way to do that.' He went on: 'The stuff that really creates jobs, it's actually probably fairly obvious. If you go to the NHS and you put more money into that, that means you're pretty immediately going to employ more nurses, more doctors, more people to your hospitals – all sorts of people working in a pretty labour-intensive healthcare occupation. 'Same thing goes for social care, same thing goes for education, to a significant extent. If you spend more on schools, you're going to need to employ more teachers. So, these things create lots of jobs. Military spending does not create lots of jobs.' Mark Seddon, a professor of economic history at Sheffield University and the director of the Centre for United Nations Studies, also suggested that defence spending was an inefficient way of creating jobs. READ MORE: 'Building new royal naval craft, ships and submarines at Govan or Barrow-in-Furness, that's got to be a good thing. I'm all in favour of keeping skilled jobs and expanding them in key sectors like that,' he said. 'But I'm not persuaded by this substantial increase in defence spending that it's going to actually result in a lot of jobs in Britain.' Seddon added: 'It's not just the [[UK Government]], but the EU – which to my mind is becoming synonymous with NATO – seem to have a policy, which is increasing military spending in an effort to save their economy. "I don't think it will, I think it makes life a lot easier for the extreme-right politically, and I don't think it's going to bring jobs in any large numbers into the industrial areas.'
