Sir Charles Walker is MP for Broxbourne.
Once you have mastered the basics, housebuilding is relatively straightforward – requiring a skilled artisan to place one brick on top of another. We know it works because in England there are about 25 million standing examples of this craft.
So given that we cracked the mechanics of building homes many hundreds of years ago, why are we making such a hash of it now? The politics of housebuilding is absorbing a huge amount of political bandwidth, placing it alongside the perennial, but equally resolvable, problem of continuing care in later life.
It is still the case that most people (certainly not all, but most) strive to own their home. Economists can argue whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But whatever their disagreements, their debate is academic because the reality stands – ‘ownership’ is the model favoured by the majority of our population.
Given that this is the case, it seems extraordinary that any politician would willingly place themselves in the way of this juggernaut of aspiration. But whatever the ownership or tenancy model, a home is a home for those that live in it, and we need to be building more of them.
Fortunately, in my Borough of Broxbourne, we are blessed with a council that likes seeing homes built. Sometimes it grants permissions for flats, for first time buyers; at other times for homes that welcome families seeking more space out of London. Some of my happiest times as its MP have been spent attending the openings of recently completed social housing schemes, witnessing happy tenants receiving the keys to their new home.
Of course, I understand that existing homeowners might not like change in the form of extra housing, but why should they be allowed to pull up the drawbridge, preventing others from enjoying their own slice of heaven? Is it not worth remembering that almost every single house in this country is built on ground that was once a meadow, greenfield or forest? Buying a house does not buy you the right to lock other people out of your community. This has never been the case and must never become the case.
And, yes, I get the need for infrastructure. Why on earth are we still quibbling about the Abingdon reservoir, a spade-ready project sitting on the books of Thames Water for the past quarter of a century, held up by little more than a score of people? If you want chalk streams that flow, build reservoirs.
But I am also clear that people only start deploying the ‘infrastructure won’t cope’ argument once they themselves have moved into an area. I allow myself a wry smile when reading e-mails, sent by those living in homes built no more than five years ago, earnestly arguing against the next development nearby.
In a similar vein, I cannot count the number of conversations that I have had with people who try to veil their true intent behind the well-rehearsed: “I am all in favour of new homes, but in the right place”. Which in plain English translates to: “keep house building off my doorstep”.
Sadly, this lack of generosity finds an audience with some. Most recently during the local elections where, both in my ward and nationally, the Liberal Democrats determinedly campaigned against the volume of new homes being built, slyly suggesting, along with the Greens, that they are the ‘wrong’ sort of homes.
I accept that, while there is no such thing as the ‘wrong’ sort of home, it is certainly the case that where I live there is a lot of construction going on. Indeed, I am occasionally stopped by constituents telling me that our shared village has been ‘ruined’.
Extraordinarily, for a place that has been ‘ruined’, most of its new housing stock is sold as fast as it is put up. Sold to people – like those who came before them and those who will come after them – totally thrilled to be moving to our village and Borough.
Whatever the verbal contortions entered into, when you are campaigning against housing you are siding with vested interests against aspiration.
I well understand that taking a hostile position when it comes to the building of new homes can be justified on electoral grounds, as it is certain that, in the short-term, there are votes (and even Ministerial advancement) to be had in opposing new build. But it is a position of selfishness – that is, in direct opposition to one of generosity, and somewhere along the line there will be a price to pay at the ballot box.
But it is more than political calculation that drives my desire to increase the pace and scale of housebuilding. Fundamentally, as a parent, I do not want to put myself in opposition to my children and their many friends, who form part of our wider family.
While recognising that my offspring have no right to live in the community in which they were raised (who does?), I do hope that they will be able to afford a home before they reach their thirties, within striking distance of where they work. If they have to move further out of London, or around the M25, to find something in their price range then so be it. But the point is this: if Broxbourne is not building houses, why should anyone else?
There is also a moral obligation to side with young people when it comes to home ownership – and that is directly linked to the sacrifices they made during the Covid pandemic to keep older people (and thereby those more likely to be homeowners) safe. A big national thank you would be for those who have got a lot to give up a little – perhaps in the form of a green field or a view – to those seeking a start in life. Indeed, there would be no better way to mark the Coronation than for a national clamour to rise up for a decade of unrivalled home building.
And there is land aplenty on which to build homes for our young and aspiring heroes. This must be the case if we can afford the luxury of covering green fields in solar panels that could go on roofs! The failure to build, even where land is plentiful, means that restricting new housing starts is a political choice. Even in Scotland, where there is an abundance of acres, the SNPs inability to build homes is a hot political topic.
For too long, politicians of all stripes have behaved as if the housing stock is fixed in contradiction to its true state, which is dynamic. There is no secret sauce to solving this problem, all that is required is the ‘political will’ to make home building, both for private sale and social tenants, a national mission.
It is the case that taking on vested interests and reforming the planning system to make it more permissive is in the gift of government. Once these are achieved, our further education colleges can train the artisans required to build the houses that we need – bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, plasterers etc. All this is doable for politicians who want to do it.
I am leaving Parliament at the next general election. Hooray and good riddance I hear you cry. But I remain a compassionate, optimistic and generous Conservative. More so now, as I leave the House of Commons than when I arrived, nearly 20 years ago. We are the Party of education, aspiration and wealth creation. A country building homes will be richer, more content and centred. This is the place I want my children and grandchildren to live in: the place I want them to call home.
Sir Charles Walker is MP for Broxbourne.
Once you have mastered the basics, housebuilding is relatively straightforward – requiring a skilled artisan to place one brick on top of another. We know it works because in England there are about 25 million standing examples of this craft.
So given that we cracked the mechanics of building homes many hundreds of years ago, why are we making such a hash of it now? The politics of housebuilding is absorbing a huge amount of political bandwidth, placing it alongside the perennial, but equally resolvable, problem of continuing care in later life.
It is still the case that most people (certainly not all, but most) strive to own their home. Economists can argue whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But whatever their disagreements, their debate is academic because the reality stands – ‘ownership’ is the model favoured by the majority of our population.
Given that this is the case, it seems extraordinary that any politician would willingly place themselves in the way of this juggernaut of aspiration. But whatever the ownership or tenancy model, a home is a home for those that live in it, and we need to be building more of them.
Fortunately, in my Borough of Broxbourne, we are blessed with a council that likes seeing homes built. Sometimes it grants permissions for flats, for first time buyers; at other times for homes that welcome families seeking more space out of London. Some of my happiest times as its MP have been spent attending the openings of recently completed social housing schemes, witnessing happy tenants receiving the keys to their new home.
Of course, I understand that existing homeowners might not like change in the form of extra housing, but why should they be allowed to pull up the drawbridge, preventing others from enjoying their own slice of heaven? Is it not worth remembering that almost every single house in this country is built on ground that was once a meadow, greenfield or forest? Buying a house does not buy you the right to lock other people out of your community. This has never been the case and must never become the case.
And, yes, I get the need for infrastructure. Why on earth are we still quibbling about the Abingdon reservoir, a spade-ready project sitting on the books of Thames Water for the past quarter of a century, held up by little more than a score of people? If you want chalk streams that flow, build reservoirs.
But I am also clear that people only start deploying the ‘infrastructure won’t cope’ argument once they themselves have moved into an area. I allow myself a wry smile when reading e-mails, sent by those living in homes built no more than five years ago, earnestly arguing against the next development nearby.
In a similar vein, I cannot count the number of conversations that I have had with people who try to veil their true intent behind the well-rehearsed: “I am all in favour of new homes, but in the right place”. Which in plain English translates to: “keep house building off my doorstep”.
Sadly, this lack of generosity finds an audience with some. Most recently during the local elections where, both in my ward and nationally, the Liberal Democrats determinedly campaigned against the volume of new homes being built, slyly suggesting, along with the Greens, that they are the ‘wrong’ sort of homes.
I accept that, while there is no such thing as the ‘wrong’ sort of home, it is certainly the case that where I live there is a lot of construction going on. Indeed, I am occasionally stopped by constituents telling me that our shared village has been ‘ruined’.
Extraordinarily, for a place that has been ‘ruined’, most of its new housing stock is sold as fast as it is put up. Sold to people – like those who came before them and those who will come after them – totally thrilled to be moving to our village and Borough.
Whatever the verbal contortions entered into, when you are campaigning against housing you are siding with vested interests against aspiration.
I well understand that taking a hostile position when it comes to the building of new homes can be justified on electoral grounds, as it is certain that, in the short-term, there are votes (and even Ministerial advancement) to be had in opposing new build. But it is a position of selfishness – that is, in direct opposition to one of generosity, and somewhere along the line there will be a price to pay at the ballot box.
But it is more than political calculation that drives my desire to increase the pace and scale of housebuilding. Fundamentally, as a parent, I do not want to put myself in opposition to my children and their many friends, who form part of our wider family.
While recognising that my offspring have no right to live in the community in which they were raised (who does?), I do hope that they will be able to afford a home before they reach their thirties, within striking distance of where they work. If they have to move further out of London, or around the M25, to find something in their price range then so be it. But the point is this: if Broxbourne is not building houses, why should anyone else?
There is also a moral obligation to side with young people when it comes to home ownership – and that is directly linked to the sacrifices they made during the Covid pandemic to keep older people (and thereby those more likely to be homeowners) safe. A big national thank you would be for those who have got a lot to give up a little – perhaps in the form of a green field or a view – to those seeking a start in life. Indeed, there would be no better way to mark the Coronation than for a national clamour to rise up for a decade of unrivalled home building.
And there is land aplenty on which to build homes for our young and aspiring heroes. This must be the case if we can afford the luxury of covering green fields in solar panels that could go on roofs! The failure to build, even where land is plentiful, means that restricting new housing starts is a political choice. Even in Scotland, where there is an abundance of acres, the SNPs inability to build homes is a hot political topic.
For too long, politicians of all stripes have behaved as if the housing stock is fixed in contradiction to its true state, which is dynamic. There is no secret sauce to solving this problem, all that is required is the ‘political will’ to make home building, both for private sale and social tenants, a national mission.
It is the case that taking on vested interests and reforming the planning system to make it more permissive is in the gift of government. Once these are achieved, our further education colleges can train the artisans required to build the houses that we need – bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, plasterers etc. All this is doable for politicians who want to do it.
I am leaving Parliament at the next general election. Hooray and good riddance I hear you cry. But I remain a compassionate, optimistic and generous Conservative. More so now, as I leave the House of Commons than when I arrived, nearly 20 years ago. We are the Party of education, aspiration and wealth creation. A country building homes will be richer, more content and centred. This is the place I want my children and grandchildren to live in: the place I want them to call home.