“We have delivered a million homes in the last five years in England: last year, we delivered the highest number of homes for almost 30 years,” the last Conservative manifesto declared.
“But it still isn’t enough. That is why we will continue our progress towards our target of 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s. This will see us build at least a million more homes, of all tenures, over the next Parliament – in the areas that really need them. And we will make the planning system simpler for the public and small builders, and support modern methods of construction.”
This form of words was coy, but Boris Johnson’s intention was evident – to introduce a zoning system that would speed up permissions and building. Enter Neil O’Brien.
Our former columnist, now a Minister once again, eviscerated the plan – or rather the algorithm on which it was based, pointing out that its application would increase the number of new homes built in non-urban and largely Conservative seats and decrease the number built in urban and largely Labour seats.
The Conservative backbenches exploded. Jeremy Hunt, Theresa May, Damian Green, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Clare Coutino, Laura Trott: grand old stagers, ’22 bigwigs, and rising young stars united to give the proposals a thorough kicking.
Ministers rushed to soothe the shires, but the revolt went public – according to one reading of the Chesham and Amersham by-election result, anyway. Out went Robert Jenrick from Levelling Up and in came Michael Gove. The Government retreated further from its manifesto plan.
But the explosion on the Tory backbenches goes on, rolling on like a fireball to engulf all in its wake. Late yesterday evening, it was reported that the Government is to pull debate next week on the Levelling Up Bill.
It fears defeat from amendments tabled by Theresa Villiers seeking to end central housing targets altogether. Read her case as set out on ConservativeHome here. Writing in the Sunday Times, Robert Colvile accused the putative Tory rebels of blighting the hopes of a generation of young people who can’t afford a home: they are “selfish”, “wicked”. Green replied here.
The best way of getting into the issues may be to think about central targets as a whole. Conservatives tend both to use them (think Net Zero) and dislike them (think the NHS, where Steve Barclay is currently planning a cull).
These tensions point to a truth – namely, that central targets are sometimes inevitable if the common good is to be furthered. And the Centre for Policy Studies estimates that if the Villiers amendments succeed there could be a 20 per cent fall in housebuilding, with some estimates as high as 40 per cent.
That’s because the amendments would not only cull the central targets, but remove the presumption in favour of development. So what do their supporters say to young people who can’t afford a home of their own?
I’m not implying bad intent by posing the question, having no window through which to peer into Tory MPs’ souls – or anyone else’s. Some of the rebels are evidently standing up for their constituents, and who can blame them for that, especially if the polls suggest that their seat are vulnerable to Labour?
Others are carrying their localism to a logical end. Still others hold developers responsible for gridlock in the system. But they have nothing convincing, I’m afraid, to say to those with no property and capital.
Their answer boils down to: build elsewhere. And, to be sure, it’s usually better to build on brownfield than greenfield. British cities are not especially dense by international standards. There is a good case for arguing that denser cities would mean faster growth: the claim is a central feature of the debate about levelling up, and the balance between boosting cities and towns.
Nonetheless, the long and short of it is that the housing needs of younger people can’t be met without some building in suburban and rural constituencies.
The Eric Pickles-Greg Clark-Sajid Javid continuum recognised that fact, patiently constructing the present system, during their tenures at what is now the Levelling Up Department, which delivered those million homes – with its central assessments of need, local housing plans in response, and Planning Inspectorate acting as referee.
If the Tory rebels put that carefully assembled system to the sword, what would replace it? Some would doubtless say that I’m being unfair – that their answer isn’t just “build elsewhere” but “built here – with local consent”.
In other words, the system should be all carrot, no stick: more support for new infrastructure if there is to be more building: more roads, rail, schools, surgeries, recreation grounds. Local people would support more homes if they were beautiful – the argument put powerfully by Policy Exchange.
It has also championed street votes. The CPS wants to changing permissions to delivery contracts based on an agreed timeline. If house builders cannot deliver this, they would have to pass the land on at an agreed price to local SMEs.
All these ideas can be thought of as ways of squeezing as much new housing out of the present system as possible. (Though the Building Beautiful principle is about much more than private homes: what about our public spaces – and the soulless constructions that the state builds so often? Here are real openings for Policy Exchange’s idea.)
I’m not arguing that a target of building 300,000 homes a year is necessarily right. Lower migration would help to reduce it. “Little over half of extra homes needed in England until the early 2040s [will] be due to immigration,” say Migration Watch.
Nor would building more homes be sufficient for greater home ownership: government needs to look again at the regime for mortgage lending. But, frankly, there is a limit to what infrastructure incentives, less migration, beautiful building and squeezing developers can get out of the system.
Especially since, as Henry Hill has pointed out on this site, securing excess permissions is one of the few ways developers can secure the reliable flow of work their businesses need.
I’m afraid that the comfortless truth is that too many people believe that the bird in their hand – their home – is worth two nearby in the bush, however beautiful they may be; however many shiny new facilities they may bring with them; however many street votes and much money they’re offered. What they have, they hold.
Which is why government needs housing sticks, I’m afraid, as well as housing carrots. I hope that the Government is soon able to bring its plans to the Commons. Not least because there is a political dimension to it doing so.
Those Tory rebels are shoring up their core vote – older voters (the only group among which the Party still commands a majority, if the polls are right). And they could point out, in all fairness, that such voters turn out at the polls, and are a useful electoral asset to have.
It may even be that successive generations of younger people turn Tory as they reach retirement age. But they might not. And think about what follows even if they do.
Young people aren’t stupid. Whatever Conservative MPs may say, they can hear the music: that there’s nothing on offer for them. Why should they vote Tory if the Party shuts them out from ownership and capital? Nor are such age wars civilisationally sustainable, let alone just.
Nor can the Conservatives win elections on the votes of the retired alone. The Party risks being dragged down by a death spiral – literally.