News & insights

Politicians Keep Promising Homes the Construction Industry Can’t Deliver. That’s Becoming a Political Trap

14 Jul 2026, by Rodion Shishkov

If you are a politician in 2026 and want to win an election, housing is the issue that cuts through everything else.

Across Europe, voters are contending with rising rents, poor-quality homes and a growing sense that a secure, affordable place to live is slipping out of reach.

Germany's SPD has leaned on housing - affordability, social housing, support for new construction - as its route back to power, the same bet the UK's Labour and the Netherlands' D66 parties have placed. Labour's pledge to overhaul planning and "get Britain building again" was central to winning in 2024, proof that a credible housing story can carry an election rather than just accompany one. D66's housing-first campaign helped deliver the next Dutch government on the same logic.

Why long delivery cycles suit politicians

Yet the same politicians who win on housing promises rarely deliver on them. There are two reasons that cycle of promise and under-delivery keeps repeating.

The first is uncomfortable: housing's delivery cycles are long enough to outlast the politicians who promise it. A pledge to build more and cut planning red tape costs nothing today. If the homes haven't appeared in five to seven years, blame shifts easily - to "the process," the courts, or the previous government.

→ A seven-year project rarely lands back on the desk of the politician who announced it.

→ Even a re-elected party usually has a different team in place by delivery.

→ Housing promises well on the stump and forgives poorly on delivery.

That gap between promise and delivery is starting to cost politicians trust. Voters increasingly treat housing pledges as election-season theatre rather than serious commitments, and each cycle of under-delivery makes the next promise harder to believe.

A market moving the wrong way

The second reason is structural. Nearly every physical product - cars, phones, appliances - has become more affordable and higher quality over the past twenty to thirty years. Housing has moved the other way.

A century ago, the most popular car cost roughly three months of a typical household's income, a ratio that has held broadly steady since. Housing has gone from around 2.5 years of household income to about 5 today. In London, a household earning £100,000 combined can expect to pay roughly £500,000 for a modest two-bedroom flat - five years of income for a home that, on the historical ratio, should cost half that. Germany's major cities run somewhat cheaper, but the multiple is still far above what it was last century.

Getting back to something like 2.5 years of household income isn't utopian. It's the logic every other manufactured good already follows.

The usual political response - higher targets, faster approvals, another round of planning reform - squeezes marginal gains from a model that has underperformed for decades. It won't close a gap this wide.

An industrial problem, not a targets problem

The key problem is that housing is still built like a twentieth-century craft project, not a twenty-first-century industrial product. That's why the actual question they should be asking is not how many homes to promise, but how to change the way homes get built.

I see this as an industrial problem, not a policy-targets problem. Construction productivity has barely moved in decades, and patchwork reform won't change that.

The approach All3 has arrived at treats design, manufacturing and on-site assembly as one integrated process rather than three handoffs between separate contractors: AI-powered design generating layouts that adapt to site and regulation, factory-based production for consistent quality with less waste, and autonomous on-site robots handling placement, fastening and inspection.

The aim is to compress timelines, cut rework, and loosen the link between delivery speed and the availability of every specific trade.

What this means for policymakers

Tighter targets, faster approvals and more planning concessions all try to legislate around scarcity - they push harder on the same delivery model rather than changing it. Closing the gap means going upstream: replacing the industry's dependence on increasingly scarce and expensive labour with a genuinely industrialised way of building, raising productivity and bringing costs down across the board, not just at the margins regulation can reach.

That shift carries through into several practical gains for policymakers.

→ Delivery moves from approval to completion within a year rather than disappearing into a five-year political cycle, giving policymakers results they can point to within their own term.

→ Costs fall and become steadier, because less of the build depends on labour whose price and availability neither developer nor government controls.

→ Financing improves as delivery becomes more predictable - what ultimately gets a new approach adopted in an industry that is thin-margin and risk-averse by nature, not because it's asked for, but because it looks safer than the status quo.

None of this requires politicians to take our word for it. There's a practical way to test it, and a longer-term way to back it.

In the near term, partnering on a small number of pilot projects would let policymakers point to faster delivery and lower risk demonstrated in practice, rather than promised in a manifesto - live case studies rather than more targets taken on faith.

Over the longer term, public funding, planning concessions and land allocation could be tied to genuine productivity gains rather than simple unit counts, rewarding the developers and contractors who are actually solving the delivery problem rather than those who are best at winning tenders.

The real question

The housing crisis won't be solved by parties promising more of the same at greater volume. It will be solved when the conversation shifts from targets to production - from how many homes are needed to how they are actually built.

That shift is already possible. Whether anyone with the power to act is willing to ask for it is a different question.

The Constructivist Episode 3: Dr Simon Kempf on why housing projects stall before construction starts

01 Jul 2026, by All3

Video: Episode 3 of The Constructivist with Dr Simon Kempf, CEO of Periskop AG, one of Germany's leading real estate asset management companies.

The Constructivist Episode 2: Markus Weigold on the productivity challenge in housing

16 Jun 2026, by All3

Video: Episode 2 of The Constructivist with Markus Weigold, partner responsible for the Berlin–Brandenburg region at real estate investment specialist, Drees & Sommer.

All3 launches The Constructivist podcast

02 Jun 2026, by All3

Video: Episode 1 of The Constructivist with Gordon Gorski, CEO of Bayerische Hausbau Development, one of Germany's largest real estate companies.