By Keith Cooper, housing journalist

The hangover from Rachel Reeves’ leaky budget looks likely to last well into next year. Her financial statement was met like a wet autumn weekend after she kicked back plans for so-called ‘rent convergence’ into the early weeks of 2026.

Councils in particular are banking on this promised realignment of rent levels, claiming it will transform their ailing housing finances from a position of ‘managed decline’ into a multi-million-pound surplus. The income boost it brings will cover the cost of fixing up their ageing homes while leaving enough in the coffers to build brand new ones, according to one optimistic estimate.

No surprise then that disappointment was the order of the day for social landlords after the chancellor’s decision on rent convergence was delayed. The Treasury wants to balance the impact of these rent bumps on tenants with the positive impact on landlords’ bottom lines. Rightly so. There no point in funding new housing which no one can afford.

The government has promised to make its position clearer in January before the £39 billion social and affordable housing programme finally opens for bids in February. That’s cutting it a bit fine, especially when rent increase letters also need to go out at the start of April.

But this delay is not the only problem facing the councils and housing associations ministers want to spearhead their affordable housing drive.

Another major challenge that has been hiding in plain sight since the summer is the likelihood this promised decade-long programme will ever actually be realised. On the outside, only four of the 10 years of this programme will be underway before the latest possible date for the next general election in 2029.

And while the housing sector is in no doubt that the billions of pounds put up by Labour is needed, opposition parties have begun casting doubt on the programme’s continuation.

Shadow communities secretary James Cleverly told the finance publication Social Housing on Budget Day, he doesn’t even believe the £39bn will “hit the sector”. “I don’t think is going to be delivered, certainly not delivered at the scale that they’re promising.”

Of greater concern to a sector expecting “unprecedented” access to affordable housing cash is Cleverly’s belief the sector is caught in a “subsidy” cycle. According to the shadow secretary, demand for affordable housing grant has been pushed up by “complexities” such as nutrient neutrality rules, which he wants stripped out.

It comes as no surprise that a Conservative administration would want less government intervention in markets, be that through an injection of taxpayers’ cash or via regulatory demands. But his position does also suggest that the continuation of the affordable housing programme beyond Labour’s tenure is not certain.

The Ministry for Housing, Communities, and Local Government dismisses Cleverly’s scepticism of its social and affordable housing programme reaching the sector as “nonsense”. It’s a fair enough rebuff for an administration with four more years to run.

But what this administration cannot credibly do is rubbish the idea that its replacement might take a different view of affordable housing funding.

Especially, when that future government might be led by a party with very different views on affordable housing funding than Labour.

Infront of this political theatre, councils and housing associations will just have to sit and wait. In the new year they’ll find out how much they can bump up their rents under Reeves’ convergence rules.

As for the affordable housing programme? It’s looking increasingly like a game of two halves. The first years should be a winner in terms of access to affordable housing cash. But funding for those final five? That’s not guaranteed.