Honestly if they can actually overcome the obstructionism which is rife in this country and build more houses and infrastructure it would be a great start.
Just on this point, I don't think 'obstructionism' is as much of a problem as you make out.
The problem with the house building aspect is that policy is far too in thrall to the demands of the major house builders.
They only want to build in large/huge housing estates where they can be on for months/years and deliver economies of scale to maximise their profits. And they press for greenfield sites as they don't have to do anything like as much remedial work and can also sell for a premium price.
Then there's the 'land banking', where they hold onto parcels of land with planning permission for a number of years so they can control supply in order to ensure there's always an excess of demand over supply, thus keeping prices inflated and not having to discount to shift unsold houses.
The vast majority of 'brownfield' sites are relatively small (up to 50 dwellings size) that the major house builders aren't interested in (but in some cases own, in order to prevent other - smaller - builders developing them).
What we often see now is a village of, say, 500 homes having a housing estate of another 200 homes built on its edge on formerly agricultural land. It destroys the character of the village, depreciates the environment, and breaks local infrastructure/services. If ten local villages had 20 extra houses built, it would be far better and much more sustainable and absorbable.
But the major house builders don't want that.
I can understand the Tories kowtowing to the big house building corporates. These huge companies and their owners/major shareholders/executives have been consistent donors to the Tory Party for decades - and we all know how the Tories love the 'he who pays the piper' ethos.
But quite why Labour are so subservient to these corporates is beyond me.
My own preference would be for Labour to embark on a massive programme of social housing using the old council housing model (not housing associations, which although nominally not-for-profit, are a cashcow for their owners in the form of huge salary 'packages'). A minimum of 250k a year (ideally closer to 500k). And rent them out on a not-for-profit basis.
This would subvert the private rental market, bringing down private rental prices. Especially if accompanied by a new 'bill of rights' for renters (including a ban on non-fault evictions, and strict price rise controls) and punitive taxation on large landlords that own, say, more than 10 or 20 properties. That in turn would lead to a moderate and relatively gradual correction in house prices full stop.
i say this as a home owner (but one who recognises that the housing market in this country is fucked, particularly for new buyers)
