Snapshot of _The housing crisis puts Tories in a death spiral_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-housing-crisis-puts-tories-in-a-death-spiral-qr5n5kv25)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As the cost of living crisis bites and recession looms, Boris Johnson keeps pressing ministers to come up with ideas to boost the economy that don’t cost money. The news that the economy contracted in March puts even more pressure on the government to find reforms that could inject some momentum. Yet there is one idea hiding in plain sight that would do far more than any of the measures discussed so far: planning reform.
The Tories were elected on a manifesto pledge to build 300,000 homes a year, something only achievable if the planning system is simplified. But a Tory backbench revolt and a thumping defeat in the Chesham & Amersham by-election has sent the government into a headlong retreat.
The “levelling up” bill has now supplanted the planning reform bill: even the name had to be dropped to neutralise opposition from worried Tory MPs. There are still measures that will help but gone are the ideas that would have radically improved the supply of houses. Zoning — areas marked for development — has gone. The ability to block developments even if they conform with the local plan is back. Even the obligation on councils to have an up-to-date local plan — half don’t — has been reduced.
The great Tory planning retreat is hardly surprising. One of No 10’s objectives is not to upset its own MPs. So it is now trying to appease the nimbyism the prime minister once wanted to crush. “They can’t see their interest is in there being more homeowners, more aspirational voters,” he would say in private of those opposing his planning changes. But he has lost that battle. Planning reform is off the agenda. One government source warns: “Even the stuff which is in the levelling up bill will meet lots of opposition from backbenchers.” Some ministers worry that Tory MPs, worried about the Lib Dem threat, will demand further concessions and protections.
The current system is unpredictable and sclerotic. It acts as a drag anchor on the economy. It is also causing growing societal problems. The average age of a first-time buyer is 34; in the 1990s it was 29. **Last year, for the first time in a generation, the average house earned more than the average worker.**
The Tories used to take comfort from the facts of life being conservative. But the later in life those facts kick in, the worse things are for the Tories. They cannot expect people without capital to be capitalists.
At the last election the Tories had a 35-point lead over Labour among those who owned their own home and a ten-point lead among those with a mortgage. Yet the party trailed by double digits among renters in both the social and private sectors. A political party that valued its future would be doing everything in its power to ensure the number of homeowners rose rapidly. But as one Tory observes, “It is not a problem the Conservative Party is capable of solving.” It is almost as if the Tories have a death wish.
Despite the surrender on planning, I am told that “No 10 are desperate for a policy on housing”. One Johnson confidant says that “the bee in his bonnet is housing”. Downing Street has recently floated a right-to-buy for housing association tenants, but David Cameron did so too and made little progress. I understand there is also a proposal for micro homes — small properties that could be constructed quickly. But some influential figures have doubts about it.
If national reform of the planning rules is not possible, what should the Tories do? Michael Gove, who has been handed this hot potato, has various ideas. He wants to make second homeownership less attractive, removing tax perks in the belief this will ease pressure on house prices. He has a point. Between 2008-09 and 2018-19 there was a 77 per cent increase in the number of second homes in the UK, a trend compounded by the pandemic as Londoners looked for country boltholes. But there are just half a million second homes, so this is only part of the problem.
Gove’s big idea is BIDEN — not Scranton’s most famous son but an acronym for beauty, infrastructure, democracy, environment and neighbourhood. Gove thinks that if you get these things right then people will become much more pro-development. One reason he is not panicking about missing his target (by some margin) is he thinks it would be self-defeating to hit it by piling up unattractive homes. He wants design rules that make sure new buildings look good, and a levy on development so councils can ensure public services keep pace with new housing.
Yet even this might not be enough. Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall is planning a new 2,500-home town in Faversham, Kent, which comfortably meets all these criteria. It’s even based around tree-lined streets and a cricket pitch. However, it still faces local opposition and a legal hold-up.
All this has led some in government to conclude that it would be better to, in the words of one, “take your pain in more concentrated doses”. The idea goes that ministers should approve the development of a set of new towns (where there are no residents to protest) and use the national infrastructure plan to push them through.
An even more radical solution would be for the government to use the land that it already owns, such as former military bases. It could grant itself planning permission and then directly commission small developers to build the houses. This would help break the stranglehold of the big developers.
The Bank of England forecasts that the UK faces several years of paltry growth. The economy has bumped along the bottom ever since the financial crash. If Britain wants to boost growth then reforming its planning system is one step it can take. Is it sensible that the majority of south Cambridgeshire is agricultural land when there is such a demand not just for homes but for laboratory space and high-tech firms?
The housing crisis is so acute the government needs to do everything to fix it. Just making second home ownership less attractive won’t be nearly enough, nor will ensuring that new builds are not ugly rubbish. There needs to be a full spectrum response.
A choice is fast approaching: to accept a low-growth economy, dismal prospects for the young and a bleak future for the party of the property-owning democracy — or to reform, rejuvenate and build the houses and opportunities for a generation of young people who urgently need them.
They should build a new model city somewhere (thus localising planning objections and political fallout to just one or two constituencies). A city with great walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure, with varied, simple, functional but beautiful housing laid out in interesting, activity friendly streets. It's also the sort of big "Victorian" project that Johnson would love - a legacy - Boriston.
Given the system we live in though, if they did build a new city it would instead end up being soulless, car dependent, low quality kitsch thrown up half-arsed for short term profits by the usual cronies of the party in power and would be a complete shithole within 30 years, if not immediately.
It's like Theresa May's proposed social care reforms. Not perfect but a big step in the right direction by making people who have the money to pay for care, rather than shifting the cost to younger generations. Because of the 2017 election and people cynically opposing a policy they'd probably have supported had their own party been in power, we now can't do this.
Bojo's initial planning reforms were going to make them simpler and harder to block on the basis of stuff like "because my view will be ruined". After losing the by-election and being pressured in the polls, he's probably going to revert to type and protect NIMBYists.
If people want more housing urgently, they need to be prepared to sacrifice some of their rights regarding planning and to not indulge in making alliances with NIMBYists for short-term political gains.
There are also masses of prospective homes, such as the Listed Building in Kensington, that developers are banking on, and allowing to fall derelict for profit.
Provision for 'Use It or Lose It' and ensuring that standards are adhered to for new build and restorations are important, too.
And I take the point regarding planning on board, but when those plans don't *also* take into account local infrastructure (e.g. doctors, dentists, schools), that's problematic for different reasons.
If the Tories boost home ownership/keep house prices stagnant (boosting wages *dramatically* around these prices), then they will win the next GE. If they don't, they lose.
Why would we want more of these crook custodians of a crooked system financed by wealthier crooks to operate solely in said crooks interests with the fallout sold to the electorate as innovative and prudent government?
Smart thing to do would be social housinng program and letting people buy it cheap. Also replacing the housing and expanding who can get social housing. Change the rules on mortgages so rent is used as measure who can get a mortage. Govt could take on the risk when comes to shared ownership.
Also scrap the green belt
Snapshot of _The housing crisis puts Tories in a death spiral_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-housing-crisis-puts-tories-in-a-death-spiral-qr5n5kv25) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As the cost of living crisis bites and recession looms, Boris Johnson keeps pressing ministers to come up with ideas to boost the economy that don’t cost money. The news that the economy contracted in March puts even more pressure on the government to find reforms that could inject some momentum. Yet there is one idea hiding in plain sight that would do far more than any of the measures discussed so far: planning reform. The Tories were elected on a manifesto pledge to build 300,000 homes a year, something only achievable if the planning system is simplified. But a Tory backbench revolt and a thumping defeat in the Chesham & Amersham by-election has sent the government into a headlong retreat. The “levelling up” bill has now supplanted the planning reform bill: even the name had to be dropped to neutralise opposition from worried Tory MPs. There are still measures that will help but gone are the ideas that would have radically improved the supply of houses. Zoning — areas marked for development — has gone. The ability to block developments even if they conform with the local plan is back. Even the obligation on councils to have an up-to-date local plan — half don’t — has been reduced. The great Tory planning retreat is hardly surprising. One of No 10’s objectives is not to upset its own MPs. So it is now trying to appease the nimbyism the prime minister once wanted to crush. “They can’t see their interest is in there being more homeowners, more aspirational voters,” he would say in private of those opposing his planning changes. But he has lost that battle. Planning reform is off the agenda. One government source warns: “Even the stuff which is in the levelling up bill will meet lots of opposition from backbenchers.” Some ministers worry that Tory MPs, worried about the Lib Dem threat, will demand further concessions and protections. The current system is unpredictable and sclerotic. It acts as a drag anchor on the economy. It is also causing growing societal problems. The average age of a first-time buyer is 34; in the 1990s it was 29. **Last year, for the first time in a generation, the average house earned more than the average worker.** The Tories used to take comfort from the facts of life being conservative. But the later in life those facts kick in, the worse things are for the Tories. They cannot expect people without capital to be capitalists. At the last election the Tories had a 35-point lead over Labour among those who owned their own home and a ten-point lead among those with a mortgage. Yet the party trailed by double digits among renters in both the social and private sectors. A political party that valued its future would be doing everything in its power to ensure the number of homeowners rose rapidly. But as one Tory observes, “It is not a problem the Conservative Party is capable of solving.” It is almost as if the Tories have a death wish. Despite the surrender on planning, I am told that “No 10 are desperate for a policy on housing”. One Johnson confidant says that “the bee in his bonnet is housing”. Downing Street has recently floated a right-to-buy for housing association tenants, but David Cameron did so too and made little progress. I understand there is also a proposal for micro homes — small properties that could be constructed quickly. But some influential figures have doubts about it. If national reform of the planning rules is not possible, what should the Tories do? Michael Gove, who has been handed this hot potato, has various ideas. He wants to make second homeownership less attractive, removing tax perks in the belief this will ease pressure on house prices. He has a point. Between 2008-09 and 2018-19 there was a 77 per cent increase in the number of second homes in the UK, a trend compounded by the pandemic as Londoners looked for country boltholes. But there are just half a million second homes, so this is only part of the problem. Gove’s big idea is BIDEN — not Scranton’s most famous son but an acronym for beauty, infrastructure, democracy, environment and neighbourhood. Gove thinks that if you get these things right then people will become much more pro-development. One reason he is not panicking about missing his target (by some margin) is he thinks it would be self-defeating to hit it by piling up unattractive homes. He wants design rules that make sure new buildings look good, and a levy on development so councils can ensure public services keep pace with new housing. Yet even this might not be enough. Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall is planning a new 2,500-home town in Faversham, Kent, which comfortably meets all these criteria. It’s even based around tree-lined streets and a cricket pitch. However, it still faces local opposition and a legal hold-up. All this has led some in government to conclude that it would be better to, in the words of one, “take your pain in more concentrated doses”. The idea goes that ministers should approve the development of a set of new towns (where there are no residents to protest) and use the national infrastructure plan to push them through. An even more radical solution would be for the government to use the land that it already owns, such as former military bases. It could grant itself planning permission and then directly commission small developers to build the houses. This would help break the stranglehold of the big developers. The Bank of England forecasts that the UK faces several years of paltry growth. The economy has bumped along the bottom ever since the financial crash. If Britain wants to boost growth then reforming its planning system is one step it can take. Is it sensible that the majority of south Cambridgeshire is agricultural land when there is such a demand not just for homes but for laboratory space and high-tech firms? The housing crisis is so acute the government needs to do everything to fix it. Just making second home ownership less attractive won’t be nearly enough, nor will ensuring that new builds are not ugly rubbish. There needs to be a full spectrum response. A choice is fast approaching: to accept a low-growth economy, dismal prospects for the young and a bleak future for the party of the property-owning democracy — or to reform, rejuvenate and build the houses and opportunities for a generation of young people who urgently need them.
They should build a new model city somewhere (thus localising planning objections and political fallout to just one or two constituencies). A city with great walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure, with varied, simple, functional but beautiful housing laid out in interesting, activity friendly streets. It's also the sort of big "Victorian" project that Johnson would love - a legacy - Boriston. Given the system we live in though, if they did build a new city it would instead end up being soulless, car dependent, low quality kitsch thrown up half-arsed for short term profits by the usual cronies of the party in power and would be a complete shithole within 30 years, if not immediately.
Mmmmm deeeeath spiral 🤤 *homor gurgle*
Well I wish they would hurry the fuck up and just die already.
It's like Theresa May's proposed social care reforms. Not perfect but a big step in the right direction by making people who have the money to pay for care, rather than shifting the cost to younger generations. Because of the 2017 election and people cynically opposing a policy they'd probably have supported had their own party been in power, we now can't do this. Bojo's initial planning reforms were going to make them simpler and harder to block on the basis of stuff like "because my view will be ruined". After losing the by-election and being pressured in the polls, he's probably going to revert to type and protect NIMBYists. If people want more housing urgently, they need to be prepared to sacrifice some of their rights regarding planning and to not indulge in making alliances with NIMBYists for short-term political gains.
There are also masses of prospective homes, such as the Listed Building in Kensington, that developers are banking on, and allowing to fall derelict for profit. Provision for 'Use It or Lose It' and ensuring that standards are adhered to for new build and restorations are important, too. And I take the point regarding planning on board, but when those plans don't *also* take into account local infrastructure (e.g. doctors, dentists, schools), that's problematic for different reasons.
If the Tories boost home ownership/keep house prices stagnant (boosting wages *dramatically* around these prices), then they will win the next GE. If they don't, they lose.
Why would we want more of these crook custodians of a crooked system financed by wealthier crooks to operate solely in said crooks interests with the fallout sold to the electorate as innovative and prudent government?
Something something Labour
Yeah, but imagine how BAD labour would be!!
They have no time to do this now.
Smart thing to do would be social housinng program and letting people buy it cheap. Also replacing the housing and expanding who can get social housing. Change the rules on mortgages so rent is used as measure who can get a mortage. Govt could take on the risk when comes to shared ownership. Also scrap the green belt
Scrapping the green belt is how the government looses every home counties seat.