In my last article, I argued that democratic capitalism should not stop at the ballot box. But the argument should not stop at the workplace either. If Liberal Democrats care about dispersing power, we should care about housing too.
For liberals, that means resisting concentrations of power. For liberal social democrats, it also means asking whether ordinary people have sufficient security, voice, and control within the institutions that shape their daily lives. Housing is one of the clearest tests of that question.
Housing is not just another market commodity. It shapes security, family life, community belonging, and whether people feel they have any real control over the conditions of their lives.
That is why housing cooperatives deserve more attention. They allow residents to become collective stakeholders in the places they live, rather than passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere. Their appeal is not just economic; it’s about empowering people through democratic control and shared governance, giving them a meaningful say in their communities. Recognising housing as a key site of power should inspire us to act for a fairer distribution of influence and security.
That speaks directly to a liberal social-democratic concern. A fair society should not rely solely on redistribution after the fact. It should also build institutions that spread power, widen security, and give people a stake from the outset. In housing, that means looking beyond the narrow choice between an overcentralised state and a speculative market, and taking seriously models based on shared control and mutual responsibility.
There is a strong case for community politics in cooperatives. They help keep resources rooted locally, reduce wealth leakage, and foster stability and self-reliance. Supporting them can strengthen political efficacy and economic resilience, a point that should resonate with those who believe in empowering local communities.
This is not a minor or decorative idea within housing policy. Cooperative traditions have helped shape the wider character of housing systems. In some countries, owner cooperatives became a major route into homeownership. Elsewhere, tenant cooperatives were more closely tied to affordable, protected rental sectors. Cooperative housing has therefore helped determine the balance among ownership, renting, affordability, and security.
That history also contains an important warning. When owner cooperatives are liberalised too far, they can drift towards ordinary market ownership and become caught up in the same logic of debt, asset inflation, and speculation that distorts the wider housing market. The case for housing cooperatives should not become a coded argument for creating one more route into housing financialisation.
So the Liberal Democrat case should be clear. We should back democratic, locally rooted, anti-extractive forms of housing provision that widen security and preserve affordability over time.
Liberal Democrats should support practical measures to facilitate the establishment and expansion of housing cooperatives, especially tenant and limited-equity models, by reforming planning, land, finance, and local development policies.
This fits squarely within the best of a liberal social-democratic tradition. Liberalism is not only about limiting the state, and social democracy is not only about taxing and spending. At their best, both ask how power can be shared more fairly across society, and how institutions can be designed so that freedom is more secure, more equal, and more widely felt.
Housing is one of the clearest places where that principle should apply.
If democratic capitalism should not stop at the ballot box, and democracy should not stop at the workplace, then it should not stop at the front door either.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
David Evans
paul barker
Mohammed Amin
Chloe
Peter Martin
18 Comments
The original building societies were co-operatives. Members would share their savings and use them to build a house that would be allocated to one of the members by lot. They would repeat this until houses had been built for all the members at which point the co-operative was wound up. Later on it was realised that it was not necessary to wind up the co-operative but it could continue by accepting new members. These were known as permanent building societies.
Thank you for an interesting and relevant article.
Might we please have more detail on Liberalism’s purpose of “limiting the power of the state”?
In which ways has the recent and current policy, plus practices, of government limiting Austerity/Neoliberalism brought benefits to regular citizens and their children?
P. S. “24% of children four face hunger and hardship” [From AI Overview article on U. K. child hunger, below]
https://www.google.com/search?q=+UK+child+hunger+of+under+4s&sca_esv=bd027c124b5cc6cd&biw=1536&bih=678&sxsrf=ANbL-n4_iqwF6WJUGjO_w1bPhn5LynoK3A%3A1774083275158&ei=y1y-aYqrCZKEhbIPt6Sy6Q
Liverpool Liberal Democrats promoted co-operative housing when they ran the Council in the 1970s an 1980s, so it would be worth talking to them.
IIRC the Housing Chair in those times is on the Council now, and was Lord Mayor in 2024/5.
I’m sure there are other eamles of Liberal Democrats working with housing co-ops, so lets find out and use the expertise we already have.
Many young people will want lower housing costs, both with rental and purchase prices, and won’t care too much how this is achieved. If the introduction of housing co-operatives can help achieve this then, fine. No will say they disagree.
However, many may not say it but they still will disagree.
I’ve no problem with property falling in value by 30% or so, even though this will affect the value of my own home. This is kind of reduction we should be aiming for. But, if I’d just bought it on a 90% mortgage I’d be left owing more the the value of the property. This would not a good position to be in.
On a wider scale the banks and building societies would be extremely concerned about their loans turning sour! Neither will the the big finance capitalists, like BlackStone, who are increasingly involving themselves in the housing market like a significant reduction in prices. All have an ability to successfully lobby government.
House prices could be reduced. Where there’s will there’s a way as the saying goes. I’ve previously explained how government could increase the housing stock at no cost to the taxpayer. But we shouldn’t underestimate the level of opposition.
@Steve Trevethan The typical Liberal argument for limited Government is not really a question of cutting spending but of harm. I think this is best expressed by John Stuart Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’, which argued any action that does not harm another person or their property should be legal; in practice meaning the Government should not prevent the expression of peaceful protest, the creation or action of Trade Unions (in most cases), or other personal affairs such as gay marriage as they are self-regarding actions that do not bring harm to others.
To ensure this is the case, the rules for the Government are ideally set out within a codified Constitution which contains checks & balances, such as an Judiciary, that can independently prevent Government overreach, which we have recently made strides towards since the creation of our own Supreme Court.
As you rightly point out austerity did bring significant harm to individuals, and so could be considered an unjust use of Government power under the Harm Principle, though of course, there is much room for interpretation here and not everyone would agree with my interpretation of it!
@ Rosemary,
“To ensure this is the case, the rules for the Government are ideally set out within a codified Constitution….”
But we don’t have a codified constitution. Even if we did, any Government would have the power to suspend , modify, or even abolish it. So we have to recognise that Governments do have almost unlimited powers to do what they like within the regions of their control. There’s really no way to abolish them.
The question is, or should be, who should be in control of that power and in whose interests is to be used.
@Peter Martin “But we don’t have a codified constitution. Even if we did, any Government would have the power to suspend , modify, or even abolish it”
Peter, loads of countries have a written constitution, and while they are usually amendable, it is generally not on a “50%+1 vote” basis, so unless a party gets a very high level of support or can convince at least some of the opposition to support such a change, they remain in force. The point is to write rules with constrain the executive or the legislature from certain actions (“Congress shall make no law….”) because some powers should not be wielded by anyone.
The fact that any such restraints are imperfect is a really poor argument against having them at all.
Peter Martin is wrong about most written constitutions. In the US, for example, any amendment to the constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress and the agreement of 3/4 of the states. Any change must therefore enjoy support across the aisle and Trump would be unable to get that. So, for example, getting agreement for him to run for a 3rd term would be very highly unlikely to pass. Also, any constitutional clause that is ambiguous has to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, which has recently shown its mettle by rejecting Trump’s tariffs, which he hadn’t expected because he had nominated many of the current SC.
The area of doubt would be in relation to emergencies or war, but here any decision by the President to invoke a state of emergency would be challengeable in the SC and could possibly be overruled by Congress.
Of course, nothing is predictable about Trump…
“Peter Martin is wrong about most written constitutions. In the US, for example, any amendment to the constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress and the agreement of 3/4 of the states.”
Whilst that is true it is, in my view, misleading. Consider the current president who has pushed the constitution to breaking point and who has achieved effective changes to the US Constitution that have taken months to work through the Court system to be overturned. There is no evidence that a populist president cannot manipulate the constitution and change it.
Then consider the problems with making the constitution hard to change. Under the US Constitution Congress must authorize debt. That may have worked well in the 18th Century but would not work now. The Constitution was not changed, presumably because that would have been difficult. Instead Congress passed a series of Act starting in 1917 in which Congress authorized a debt ceiling. This is why the US has periodic crisis’ and shut downs. Be careful what you wish for.
@Andrew Tampion “Whilst that is true it is, in my view, misleading. Consider the current president who has pushed the constitution to breaking point and who has achieved effective changes to the US Constitution that have taken months to work through the Court system to be overturned”
But they (or some of them) have been overturned. Even by a Supreme Court packed with people Trump nominated.
There are problems with a difficult-to-amend constitution, as you have stated. But there’s also problems with the UK’s “Good chap” theory of government, as Boris Johnson has fairly recently demonstrated. The Salisbury Convention is just a convention, not codified.
> Neither will the the big finance capitalists, like BlackStone …
Which illustrates an oft-ignored constraint of our politics. When commentators opine that issues such as deindustrialisation or defence run-down are “our” fault – or politicians fault – this ignores that the Plutocracy might simply have decided that they cannot afford it. So they opted out of the taxes. I cannot ever remember voting for deindustrialisation but it happened. Did a majority of my neighbours out-vote me? Or do we have a “procedural democracy”?
It is even worse than the Plutocracy investing in politics to preserve current wealth. The future budgeted revenue and profits based on the low input costs for selling coffee (for example) will be protected by political investment. Peter Thiel might get an hour in No. 10. You will not.
@ Andrew, Daniel and Mick,
I’m personally sceptical about how effective a codified constitution for the UK would be. But if the majority (a 75% super majority?), of people want one then who am I to object? The problems will be in the details of just what went into it. The first big one would be on the position of the monarchy. What would be the support for that?
The more general point I was making was that instead of trying to find ways of limiting the powers of government, it is better to recognise that they are considerable and it’s not really possible to change this.
@Peter Martin “The more general point I was making was that instead of trying to find ways of limiting the powers of government, it is better to recognise that they are considerable and it’s not really possible to change this.”
Peter, insofar as I can form an accurate impression of a person from limited interactions BTL on here, I judge you to be a decent person with whom I disagree (and not always, at that).
But you’re completely wrong here, and furthermore you’re moving the goalposts. The most powerful man in the world, despite managing to place his own people on the body making the judgements, has been told “no” by the same body recently. Because he is bound, however imperfectly, by the US Constitution.
The Irish government is bound by the Irish constitution. The German government by the Basic Law, and other countries, including some constitutional monarchies, by their own constitutions.
Constitutions do, demonstrably, bind governments, so, despite agreeing that powers of governments are indeed considerable, it is clearly possible to limit them, so your “general point” (even after you have moved from “almost unlimited” to “considerable”) is not just a point on which I disagree, but totally unsupportable. If you don’t support a written constitution, well I disagree, but fair enough to a point, but you don’t get to completely ignore actual facts to make your point.
@ Daniel,
There are also examples to show the opposite. Iceland (population 300k) has a government which has, at times, shown considerable resolve. Despite its small size, It was the only one to actually jail any bankers after the 2008 Global financial crisis. . Following the collapse of its three major banks, Iceland prosecuted dozens of executives, resulting in 26 bankers receiving combined sentences of 74 years for crimes such as market manipulation, breach of duty, and fraud.
I very much suspect, if they’d had a constitution with lots of supposed checks and balances plus a multi-layered legal system, that this wouldn’t have been at all possible. It wasn’t possible anywhere else! Of course, an alternative explanation is that Icelandic bankers were much worse than bankers anywhere else and were the only ones deserving of such a punishment. Is this likely though?
These 26 would, no doubt, very much agree with you, and UK Lib Dems, that the State should be regarded a as a threat and its power should be curtailed as much as possible.
@Peter
Iceland does have a written constitution though, which does indeed guarantee a right to a public trial, and thus quite rightly limits the power of the executive to imprison people without trial. They had the banking crisis trials under it.
(As an aside, the whole Icelandic banking system was indeed particularly egregious so it may well have been easier to justly prosecute)
@ Daniel,
There’s two issues here: Firstly, recognising the power of the State.
Secondly, the question of how much does a written constitution limit it. I’d say not much BTW. It is the unreported and secretive lobbying by vested interests that both limits the power and directs it in less than desirable ways.
I can’t see anything much to object to in the Icelandic constitution with its 79 articles. Most of them are quite bland such as there being a requirement for the President to live close to Reykjavik. It’s fair enough to have it in the constitution that elections have to be held every so many number of years and that everyone has the right to a fair trial etc but how does this limit the power of governments? We seem to manage on both counts without one.
The first article in their constitution is: “Iceland is a Republic with a parliamentary government ”
What would ours be? Would we ever be able to agree and get on to article 2?
@Peter Martin
For heaven’s sake, Peter, stop it. You’re not engaging with the substance of Mick’s and my point.
You said “Even if we did, any Government would have the power to suspend , modify, or even abolish it”
And both Mick and I pointed out that, because of the rules around changing most constitutions, it’s not “any Government” at all, or even most, because it is unusual for a government to have a supermajority.
And then you said ” it’s not really possible to change [the power of governments]” and I pointed out that Donald Trump has, very recently, be told he doesn’t have a power he was trying to exercise, so it clearly is possible.
And then you started talking some irrelevant point about how Iceland’s successful prosecution of some bankers was a counter-example, even though Iceland has a written constitution and didn’t suspend, amend, or abolish it to do so.
You are right that secretive lobbying by vested interests is a problem. But that is not relevant to your original point regarding constitutions. You’ve not so much moved the goalposts as changed to playing basketball. Give over.
(also, none of this is much to do with cooperative housing, I note)
@Daniel, OK I agree this isn’t the right thread to discuss the question of a constitutions for the UK. We should stop.
It might make an interesting OP for you or someone else to write though!