In Liverpool, on the eve of Labour's party conference, Prime Minister Andy Burnham unveiled 'Your First Home' — a scheme offering equity loans and minimal deposits to first-time buyers who earn steadily but cannot assemble the savings or family wealth that modern homeownership increasingly demands. It is the latest chapter in Britain's long reckoning with a housing market that has quietly sorted the population into those with inherited advantage and those without. The government's wager is that targeted demand-side support, paired with a push to return 300,000 empty homes to use, can open a do
Burnham launches 'Your First Home' scheme to help first-time buyers bypass family wealth
Too many young people are giving up hope on ever owning a home
Mark
So the scheme gives buyers a 20% equity loan and only requires 2.5% down. That's a huge reduction from what people normally need. How does that actually work—does the government own a stake in the home?
Mimi
Yes, exactly. The government holds that 20% equity stake, interest-free for a period. So you're borrowing from the state, not a bank, and you own the rest. The idea is to get people past the deposit barrier without saddling them with extra debt.
Luke
But we should be clear: this is still a loan. The buyer has to repay it eventually, with interest after the initial period. It's not a gift. And the scheme only applies to new-build homes, which is a significant constraint—most of the housing stock is existing homes.
Mark
Why new-build only? That seems like it would exclude most people looking to buy.
Mimi
The government wants to incentivise developers to build more homes. If you make the scheme attractive for new builds, you're essentially subsidising construction. Developers pay fees to participate, which helps fund the programme.
Luke
Though we don't know yet if those developer fees will actually cover the costs, or if this will end up being a net cost to the public budget. The source says the funding comes from "reprioritised" budgets, which is vague—it could mean cuts elsewhere in housing, or it could mean cuts to something completely different.
Mark
Burnham said the scheme won't push prices up because the government is also increasing supply. But Rayner admitted there's only a slim chance of hitting the 1.5 million home target. Doesn't that undermine the whole argument?
Mimi
It does create a tension. If you're putting more money into the market without a corresponding increase in homes available, basic economics suggests prices will rise. Burnham's answer is that they're working on supply, but the housing secretary's own words suggest that's uncertain.
Luke
And we should note: Osborne's help-to-buy schemes were criticised for doing exactly that—helping people who might have bought anyway and inflating prices. The government says it's made adjustments to avoid that, with income caps and price caps. But those safeguards are only as good as their enforcement, and we don't have details on what those caps actually are.
Mark
What about the empty homes part? That seems more straightforward—just get councils to use powers they already have.
Mimi
It is simpler in theory. Reducing the eligibility period from two years to six months means councils can act faster on properties that are sitting vacant. There are over 300,000 of these homes, so the potential is real.
Luke
But again, we're relying on local authorities to have the capacity and will to use these powers. Councils are stretched thin. Giving them the legal authority to move faster doesn't automatically mean they will, or that they have the staff to do it.
El Pulso
- A generation of would-be buyers earns enough to repay a mortgage but cannot clear the deposit barrier — and 'Your First Home' is the government's direct answer to that specific, widening trap.
- The ghost of Osborne's help-to-buy haunts the announcement: those earlier schemes were popular but accused of inflating prices by stoking demand without matching supply, a cycle the new programme risks repeating.
- The scheme is deliberately narrower — income caps, savings limits, and price ceilings are designed to filter out those who don't truly need help, addressing the central criticism that past programmes subsidised buyers who would have managed anyway.
- Angela Rayner's admission that the government has only a 'slim chance' of hitting its 1.5 million homes target casts a long shadow: if supply stalls, new demand could simply push prices higher.
- On a second front, councils will gain faster powers to reclaim long-term empty homes — cutting the eligibility window from two years to six months — potentially unlocking more than 300,000 dormant dwellings.
- The scheme's true verdict will arrive not at launch but in the budget and the years beyond, when data reveals whether it moved people into homes or merely moved money into the market.
In Liverpool, on the eve of Labour's party conference, Prime Minister Andy Burnham unveiled 'Your First Home' — a scheme offering equity loans and minimal deposits to first-time buyers who earn steadily but cannot assemble the savings or family wealth that modern homeownership increasingly demands. It is the latest chapter in Britain's long reckoning with a housing market that has quietly sorted the population into those with inherited advantage and those without. The government's wager is that targeted demand-side support, paired with a push to return 300,000 empty homes to use, can open a door that has been closing on a generation — though history and the housing secretary's own cautious words remind us that supply, not schemes, is the harder problem.
Andy Burnham chose the eve of Labour's Liverpool conference to announce 'Your First Home', a mortgage scheme aimed at first-time buyers in England who have reliable incomes but lack the savings or family backing to meet a conventional deposit. Under the programme, buyers receive a 20% equity loan on new-build properties, need only a 2.5% minimum deposit, and benefit from an initial interest-free period. Income caps, savings thresholds, and price ceilings are built in to ensure support flows to those who genuinely cannot buy without it.
The scheme is consciously shaped by the failures of its predecessors. George Osborne's help-to-buy programmes, launched in 2013, became enormously popular — supporting roughly one in five first-time purchases at their peak — but were criticised for inflating prices by stimulating demand without expanding supply. Burnham acknowledged the concern directly, arguing that tighter eligibility rules make this version meaningfully different. Where Osborne's schemes covered homes worth up to £600,000, the new programme will impose modest price caps. Funding will come from reprioritised budgets, with developers paying fees tied to property values to offset running costs.
The demand-side logic only holds, however, if supply keeps pace. Burnham's answer to the inflation risk is that the government is simultaneously working to build more homes — but that claim carries a credibility problem. Housing secretary Angela Rayner recently conceded there is only a 'slim chance' of meeting the target to build 1.5 million homes before the next election. If construction lags, the scheme could produce exactly the outcome critics feared: more buyers competing for the same limited stock.
Alongside the mortgage programme, the government is moving to unlock more than 300,000 long-term empty dwellings. Councils will see the eligibility period for empty dwelling management orders cut from two years to six months, and the evidential bar at residential property tribunals will be lowered, giving local officers more speed and discretion to return vacant homes to use.
The announcement itself reflects a resolved internal argument: housing ministers who pushed for a new help-to-buy scheme had initially been overruled by then-chancellor Rachel Reeves, who prioritised supply. Burnham's decision signals that the balance has shifted. The formal test comes in the budget, when Chancellor John Healey will introduce the programme — and the deeper test will unfold over years, in the data on prices, completions, and the lives of the people the scheme was built to reach.
Andy Burnham is betting that a new mortgage scheme can do what family money cannot: get young people into homes. The prime minister announced "Your First Home" on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, a programme designed to help first-time buyers in England who have steady income but lack either the savings or the family backing to assemble a traditional down payment.
The mechanics are straightforward. Buyers will receive a 20% equity loan toward a new-build property, need only 2.5% as a minimum deposit, and enjoy an initial period free of interest charges. Income caps and savings limits will screen out higher earners; price caps will restrict purchases to modest homes. The scheme targets a specific gap in the market: people who could sustain a mortgage but cannot clear the deposit hurdle that has become the real barrier to entry.
This is not the government's first attempt at this problem. George Osborne introduced help-to-buy schemes starting in 2013, and they were undeniably popular—by 2014-15, they supported roughly one in five first-time buyer purchases. But they also drew sharp criticism. The schemes helped people who might have bought anyway, critics argued, and by increasing demand without matching supply, they pushed prices higher. A government review later calculated the programmes delivered £25 billion in social value, yet the cost-benefit question lingered. Burnham acknowledged the concern directly: "We think some adjustments needed to be made to it to make it focus on the people who really need support, and I think our scheme does that."
The new version is narrower by design. Where Osborne's schemes applied to homes worth up to £600,000, Burnham's will cap prices to keep them modest. The income and savings thresholds are meant to exclude those who don't actually need help. The scheme will open for registration by the end of 2026, funded through what the government calls reprioritised budgets—though it remains unclear whether that means redirecting money already earmarked for housebuilding or cutting elsewhere. Developers will pay fees tied to property values to offset running costs.
Burnham addressed the core anxiety head-on: won't this just drive prices up further? His answer was that the government is simultaneously working to increase overall housing supply, which should prevent demand-side stimulus from translating into pure price inflation. But there is a credibility problem embedded in that claim. Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, acknowledged last weekend that the government has only a "slim chance" of meeting its target to build 1.5 million homes in England by the next election. If supply doesn't rise to meet the new demand the scheme creates, the outcome could be exactly what critics feared from Osborne's programmes: more money chasing the same stock of homes.
The government is also moving on a second front. It will strengthen the powers of local councils to take over long-term empty and derelict homes, reversing Conservative-era restrictions. The eligibility period for empty dwelling management orders will drop from two years to six months, allowing councils to act faster. The evidential bar for residential property tribunals will be lowered, giving empty homes officers more discretion and speed. The government estimates there are more than 300,000 dwellings classified as long-term empty—homes that could return to use if the bureaucratic friction were reduced.
The scheme emerged from a bureaucratic tussle within government. Housing ministers and officials under Keir Starmer argued for a new version of help-to-buy, but were initially overridden by then chancellor Rachel Reeves, who wanted to prioritise boosting supply over demand-side support. Burnham's announcement suggests that argument has been settled in favour of the housing ministers, at least for now. The real test will come in the budget, when John Healey, the current chancellor, formally introduces the programme. And the deeper test will come in the years after, when the data arrives: whether the scheme actually gets people into homes, whether it avoids inflating prices, and whether the supply side can keep pace.
Citas Notables
We think some adjustments needed to be made to it to make it focus on the people who really need support, and I think our scheme does that.— Andy Burnham, on how the new scheme differs from Osborne's help-to-buy programmes
There is only a slim chance the government will meet its target of building 1.5 million homes in England by the next election.— Angela Rayner, housing secretary
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en The Guardian ↗