The Labour Campaign for Council Housing’s resolution (model-resolution-2025.pdf) to the Labour Party conference has been deemed to be not ‘contemporary’, i.e. it will not be on the conference agenda. The Conference Arrangements Committee has not explained the basis of their judgement. A Constituency Labour Party which has sent in the resolution has to explain why it is ‘contemporary’, without knowing why the CAC decided it isn’t. It’s a bit like somebody in court having to prove they are innocent rather than the other side having to prove you are guilty.
The new Rule on ‘contemporary resolutions’ says
“All affiliated organisations, the ALC, Young Labour and CLPs may submit one contemporary motion to Conference which is not substantially addressed by reports of the National Executive Committee or National Policy Forum to Conference.”
This was always problematic. The phrase is sufficiently elastic to mean whatever the leadership wants it to mean. Even if an issue has been “substantially addressed” by the NPF or NEC, members and CLPs might disagree with the content. The question posed now is do CLPs not have the right to propose an alternative policy because it has been “substantially addressed” by the NPF?
In the context of Labour being in government, this effectively means that (so long as the leadership has control of the Conference Arrangements Committee) CLPs are denied the democratic right to seek to change government policy.
If housing is kept off the agenda this year it will be the fourth year in a row. The way the leadership achieved it in the previous 3 years was that their unofficial faction, Labour to Win, led by Luke Akehurst, has recommended its 6 resolutions in the Priorities Ballot. This is what the leadership wants you to support, was the message passed around. And housing was not one of them. None of the Labour to Win resolutions, of course, contest government policy in any way. They are designed to prevent anything contentious reaching the conference floor.
Why is the government frightened to have a discussion on council housing? Precisely because they know that conference would demand a return to a large scale council housing programme, as they did in 2019 and 2021, when last discussed.
As reported by Labour Hub, the CAC has also attempted to bury debate on the two child benefit cap, Palestine and other questions.
The CAC’s decision is being appealed. It would be shameful that debate on council housing is blocked at the very time when news has emerged that the cost of temporary accommodation has risen to £2.8 billion in the last financial year. This is pushing some councils to the financial brink. One of the demands of our resolution is that the government should fund the cost of temporary accommodation.
“While the housing emergency is draining billions in public funds, families across the country are paying the ultimate price. Money that should be helping them into a secure home is instead shelled out on grim temporary accommodation, just to keep people off the streets. There’s nowhere near enough social homes and as a result homelessness has reached record levels, with thousands of desperate families showing up to their council’s doorstep for help. Private providers are cashing in on this crisis, charging eye-watering sums for rooms where children are forced to eat, sleep and do their homework on beds shared with siblings.”
Shelter is calling for 90,000 social rent homes a year to be funded by government. In our resolution we call for at least 90,000 social rent council homes a year. But the government has only committed to funding 18,000 social rent homes a year. When you take into account demolitions and Right to Buy sales that number will shrink significantly.This is nowhere near what is required to cut the more than 131,000 households in temporary accommodation and more than 1.3 million households on waiting lists.
As we know from the debacle over winter fuel allowance and benefits payments, if the members are denied the right to debate key issues of government policy, errors cannot be corrected. If the leadership acts in a factional way, imposing its will and preventing discussion, it will still face external pressure from those suffering the consequences of their policies. Indeed the more it is seen to prevent debate then the greater will be the extra-pariamentary pressure.
Mimicking Trump, Steve Reed, Angela Rayner’s replacement, has said the government would “build baby build”. “Let the developers do what they do best”, he has said. But what the developers do is profiteering, building homes which not many people can afford, often of poor quality. The market will not resolve the housing crisis. Council housing is the key to resolving it. Without a fundamental change of policy the acute housing crisis, which has disastrous social consequences, will simply drag on, and enhance the chances of a reactionary right wing government at the next general election.
As Andy Burnham has said
“The goverment should make building hundreds of thousands of council homes its defining purpose. No other policy achievable within a Parliament, would have greater social and economic benefits.”
Martin Wicks
September 21st 2025
Labour Campaign for Council Housing 