PopCon's Swift ponders whether the Labour Party plans for housebuilding will survive contact with reality
‘Between the idea and reality falls the shadow’ noted T.S. Eliot. It is an aphorism with which the present government is going to become wearisomely familiar in the next four or so years.
The gap between good intentions and messy practicality is going to loom largest of all for Angela Rayner in housing and planning, that much is clear. The government is talking a very good game but is going to fail to walk the walk.
More of that in a moment. What about the Tory position?
Swift is not against more house building. We need it. People need it. Young people (some of whom used to vote Conservative) need it especially.
For narrow political advantage, the case for the Conservatives backing development in and around villages, towns and cities is overwhelming. There is a reason why the party is about as appealing as skinny jeans and trainer socks to younger voters - we didn’t build enough homes.
This is not a lesson yet learnt, to judge by some of the reactions from Tory MPs and councillors, broadcast by the Telegraph and Mail, about the sacred nature of local democracy and the absolute protection necessary for the green belt. Fine then, let’s stay in opposition for the next twenty years while our remaining supporters join the celestial host. Unfortunately the celestial host doesn’t have a vote.
If Swift were dictating Tory policy, he would have trumpeted a great welcome to Labour’s national housing target and then ripped into them over the detail.
And there is plenty to criticise. 50% of all new builds will be social housing? This is far too high. If the government is not going to build dwellings itself (let’s hope not) then private developers will have to do so. They need to make a margin, so social housing should be 25% max.
Why drop the beauty requirement? Sure, it’s subjective, but so are a lot of planning issues. Public opinion would be more favourable if housing stock looks OK (and Swift would incline to the imitation Georgian and Victorian terraces that trendies and architects hate, but residents love).
(Incidentally have Swift’s readers noticed the habit of architectural practices to operate from gorgeous period properties and build ugly modern ones? By your premises shall ye know them).
Worst of all, it appears that building targets have been upweighted in rural and Northern areas, yet reduced in London and other cities - London by some 20%.
This is lunacy. Where do people want to live?: London.
Where are new houses not needed?: the North (plenty of stock, few takers).
Swift is OK building more in rural areas (sorry NIMBYs) as the locals can’t afford a small garden shed in some places, while the relentless march of the Air B’n’b monster swallows every cottage from Winchester to Land’s End. But London needs more houses and flats than anywhere else, and that is where planners and the mayor should get out of the way while we go for greater densities and added floors. It worked for Belgravia and and Bayswater, and it could work for the suburbs ND east London too.
Whether the London v national target is political chicanery, appeasement of the v small man/v large ego archetype that is Sadiq Khan, or the usual civil service incompetence, Swift’s readers can decide. His money is on the first mixed with the second. The result might well be - to misquote the late Eric Morecambe - more houses, but not necessarily in the right places.
Eliot was right. The shadow is looming, and it’s Labour’s own fault. Five stars for ambition, one for execution.
Here is a simple proposal.
Objections to house-building are largely driven by greed. This is unkind but true. Guff about the lack of infrastructure, or the rare butterflies, or the splendid views is just that, guff. It’s about the house prices, folks.
Ok then, developers. Offer a cash deal to the local population. Or the local authority could run an auction. 51% in favour, and build, baby, build. If the cash is high enough it will turn out that the bus links, the butterflies and the beauty spots will surrender - to the bung.
Labour won’t do this. It’s too addicted to centralised planning. The Conservatives won’t either, sadly, even though it is capitalism in action. Maybe a couple more defeats will help concentrate the party’s mind. Swift hopes so.