It is my view that the content of communication has changed by similar amounts to the methods used in recent years. While it is easier to track the invention of the iPhone, or the day we all joined Facebook, the exact time when the lines of acceptability blur is much more difficult.
We can attach arbitrary dates to these things more than definitive points, but one thing that has really struck me in recent years is the things we now deem to be okay to say in the public domain have changed exponentially.
We used to have politicians who would trade barbs but share pints. Now we just sit idly by and watch policymakers call each other liars, hurl insults on social media or arguably worst of all, try and take part in one-upmanship for who gets to be the most radical and least humane.
The latest public disagreement between Robert Jenrick and Zia Yusuf has exposed more than just tensions inside Reform UK. It has likely started a series of diatribes as to who social housing “is for”, and what happens when housing policy becomes entangled with immigration politics.
Now these two have yet to go scorched earth on each other, and I wouldn’t expect it in the immediate future. But it's my view that a large reason all the pollsters have Farage in Number 10 after the next election is because of the rhetoric used by their party. For whatever reason, it seems the direct harshness regularly displayed by the likes of Jenrick, Yusuf and Anderson is what resonates these days. I dont see that changing very quickly either.
The row began after Jenrick appeared to soften Reform’s position on deporting foreign nationals living in social housing. The former Tory suggested that someone would not be deported “exclusively” for living in council accommodation, but instead on the basis of whether they met broader economic criteria around work and income. Yusuf quickly contradicted him publicly, insisting that any foreign national living in social housing at taxpayer expense would “automatically fail” Reform’s economic test and face deportation.
The exchange generated headlines, but little meaningful discussion about housing policy itself - Yusuf simply chucked out the old reliable and always cheap threat of deportation. For charities the exchange matters because it frames social housing not as a public good or a safety net, but as a political dividing line.
This blog has alluded to the levels of homelessness many times so we won't go into it, but to behave in this manner amidst the backdrop of the current situation is ignorant and risks distracting from the structural causes of the housing crisis.
According to homelessness charities across the UK, the shortage of genuinely affordable homes remains a central issue. Social housing stock has failed to keep pace with demand for decades, while welfare reforms, insecure work and high private rents continue to push vulnerable households into homelessness.
Yet this tiresome rhetoric increasingly focuses on who should be excluded from housing support rather than how more homes can be built and protected.
Even if this is not the most important to come from this, the disagreement also highlights a glaring contradiction within the party. On one hand, Farage’s party presents itself as speaking for communities who are ignored and struggling. On the other, its leading figures are debating whether social housing should be used as a mechanism for immigration enforcement. Another old reliable - blame the immigrants instead of consulting the (large) evidence base that shows massive underinvestment in housing shortages. .
The fact this disagreement was public raises many questions but chiefly, do we actually think there is a coherent idea behind the so-called “housing policies” of the party? I’d be in the doubtful camp on that one. Ultimately, the bigger concern is that homelessness is being discussed through the lens of political point-scoring rather than practical solutions.
What appears to be missing from much of this debate is a serious discussion about long-term housing supply, prevention services and investment in communities.