Image: Istock
Breaking the silence
Why saying nothing in the face of racist activity is a high-risk strategy for housing associations
GOVERNANCE & STRATEGY
Mushtaq Khan
Chief Executive, Housing Diversity Network
Mushtaq Khan
Chief Executive, Housing Diversity Network
Issue 82 | February 2026
Most of my work in 2025 has involved helping housing association executives and board members respond to the challenges of an overtly polarised social and political environment. Across the UK, racist activity became more visible at a neighbourhood or estate level, often manifesting through protests, symbolic displays, online mobilisation and intimidation of minority communities.
In numerous discussions, often at board training or update sessions, I heard the ‘we’re politically neutral and are not going to make any statements on things like this’ phrase being used.
In my mind, this thinking and the subsequent decision by some in the housing sector to remain silent or neutral carries significant risk. Looking back at 2025 and scanning the horizon for 2026, silence is not a neutral act; it can actively undermine community safety, cohesion and the trust of both tenants and staff in the organisation.
Far-right risk in social housing
We know that in 2025, the far right increasingly made claims about housing shortages and public services, pinning the blame on migrants, using openly Islamophobic language. Much of the public thinks that every new build property in the social housing sector is for migrants and I remember speaking to a chief executive who had to put up extra security on a new development because of the threats to the workforce and the properties themselves.
What distinguished this activity was its normalisation as part of everyday life in the community. Flags, leafleting, organised patrols and social media messaging have been concentrated on social housing estates and mixed‑tenure neighbourhoods.
For residents from minority, ethnic backgrounds, these actions are frequently experienced as targeted and intimidating, even when framed by organisers as expressions of ‘patriotism’ or protest. Where housing associations did not acknowledge or respond to these dynamics, many tenants (and indeed staff) perceived a lack of protection or concern for what is their lived reality.
“Where housing associations did not acknowledge or respond to these dynamics, many tenants (and indeed staff) perceived a lack of protection or concern for what is their lived reality.”
“In areas where far‑right rhetoric activity goes unchallenged, it can appear legitimised.”
Housing association accountability
One of the most significant risks of silence is the normalisation of intolerance. Housing associations have always seen themselves as anchor institutions: their words, actions and inactions shape what is seen as acceptable behaviour in a community. What you don’t do is as important as what you do.
In areas where far‑right rhetoric activity goes unchallenged, it can appear legitimised. This creates an environment where discriminatory language, harassment, or ‘us and them’ narratives become more common, pushing community behaviours in a harmful direction.
We have seen in the political field how the unchallenged shifts in tone and language have emboldened those seeking to divide communities along racial or cultural lines.
A threat to communities and standards
Silence also damages social cohesion, which is a core priority for housing associations (and should form part of your diversity and inclusion strategy). We know that trust between neighbours is often hard-earned, fragile and easily eroded by fear and misinformation. In areas affected by far‑right mobilisation, residents may withdraw from shared spaces, avoid community events or disengage from local decision‑making. Housing associations that fail to intervene risk presiding over increasingly fragmented neighbourhoods, where disputes escalate and residents feel unsafe. This has direct operational consequences, from increased complaints and tenancy disputes to higher turnover and reputational harm.
A loss of neighbourhood belonging for some residents also has legal and safeguarding risks. Housing associations have duties under equality legislation, health and safety law and safeguarding frameworks to provide environments free from harassment and discrimination. Far‑right activity, even when subtle, can quickly cross into hate incidents or crimes.
A lack of response may expose associations to legal challenge or increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly if tenants feel their concerns were ignored. As regulatory expectations around tenant voice and consumer standards continue to strengthen, inaction becomes an increasingly risky stance.
Another critical risk is the loss of perception-shaping and agenda-setting in neighbourhoods. Where trusted institutions are silent, far‑right groups can step in to position themselves as the only voices willing to ‘speak up’ about local grievances. This distorts legitimate concerns about housing pressures or the state of public services, reframing them through an exclusionary and discriminatory lens.
In 2025, this dynamic was evident in several communities where extremists gained influence precisely because mainstream organisations avoided difficult conversations. The result is a weakened local democracy and reduced resilience to misinformation.
The road ahead
Looking ahead in 2026, these risks are likely to intensify rather than fade. Economic pressures, the ongoing toxic debate about migration and the continued use of social media platforms to target local communities mean that far‑right narratives will remain adaptive and persistent.
Housing associations that do not develop clear, values‑led responses risk being perpetually reactive or even worse – absent from conversations that directly affect their tenants and neighbourhoods.
The alternative to silence is not ‘being political’ but principled and forward-thinking leadership.
In 2026, housing associations will need to be explicit about their commitment to inclusion, dignity and safety for all residents. This includes speaking out against intimidation, supporting tenants who experience harassment, working with local partners to address emerging risks and investing in long‑term community cohesion. Staff training, clear communication and strong oversight at board level will be essential.
Ultimately, the lesson from 2025 is clear: silence in the face of far‑right activity is not a low‑risk option. It carries social, legal and reputational consequences and undermines the very purpose of housing associations as builders of stable, inclusive communities. Proactive engagement grounded in shared values is not optional; it is essential for protecting residents and strengthening neighbourhoods.
“The alternative to silence is not ‘being political’ but principled and forward-thinking leadership.”
