The case for Labour housing radicalism

Tl;dr: the NIMBYs aren’t voting for you anyway.

Something different for this weekend's free post: instead of a dip into the archive, here's a previously unpublished thing I wrote for the consultancy BCW Global in 2022. It appears here with the permission of the lovely John McTernan.

If you enjoy it and would like to support my work why not become a paying subscriber? Today was meant to be my birthday drinks, but I'm stuck indoors with covid (so 2021) so this would be a particularly good time to cheer me up.

Should Labour win the next election – an eventuality which currently looks a whole lot more likely than it did the day after the last election – new Prime Minister Keir Starmer is going to face an in-tray a mile high. With the economy wobbling, the energy sector in crisis, and, on occasion, the beaches of Great Britain being literally covered with sewage, a housing crisis which has been building for over a decade may struggle to make it to the top of the pile. There’s an argument, however, that it should. 

More of this, please. Image: public domain, via PICRYL.

The facts of the case have become so familiar that they’ve sometimes ceased to shock, but they shouldn’t have. In 2004, the Barker Review of Housing Supply found that Britain needed to build 240,000 new homes a year to ensure it was meeting demand. In the nearly two decades since, it has managed this only once, resulting in an ever widening gap between demand for housing and the amount of it we actually have. 

As a result of this, plus a buy-to-let bubble and a decade of loose fiscal policy, Britain’s home ownership rate, once a proud part of our national self-image, is now lower than that of France. That, plus the fact the state has stopped building housing, has left a growing share of the population at the mercy of an under-regulated private rental sector, where poor quality, sudden rent rises and revenge evictions are all too common. According to 2021 research published by Shelter, more than a third of the population (34%) are now stuck in homes that are unaffordable, unfit or unstable.

Over-priced and insecure housing is not merely a problem for the individual. It suppresses productivity, by preventing people from living in the most productive cities. It causes staffing problems for employers and public services. It results in overcrowded transport arteries and adds to our carbon footprint, by forcing people to commute long distances. And it delays family formation, suppressing the birthrate and contributing to the demographic time bomb. More abundant and affordable housing would address a lot of other problems, too.

We have no shortage of space to put it. A 2019 report from the Centre for Cities – very far from the first of its ilk – found that simply changing the designation of green belt land within walking distance of every station within 45 minutes of a major city could provide space for 2.1 million homes. By rethinking just 1.8% of the green belt, we could increase Britain’s housing supply by 10%, and all within an easy commute of our biggest employment centres. We could transform Britain’s housing market, boost the economy, and raise billions for the public purse, and all without touching a single square inch of genuinely scenic areas like the National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

If it’s so easy, why have we not done it? Because, in short, the locals don’t want to. The green belt remains hugely popular, even though much of the land it protects is less “area of outstanding natural beauty” than “beige agricultural monoculture”. The political costs of standing against NIMBYism are simply too high. 

Labour, uniquely, might have political space to address this problem. The Tories are, understandably, never going to impose development on seats which don’t want it and which largely vote for them. The Liberal Democrats have made clear, in places like Chesham & Amersham, that they’re ready and willing to play the NIMBY card, and to hell with those younger voters who might need housing.

Labour, though, is not in contention for many of these seats, especially in the hottest housing markets of the south east: the political cost of annoying these voters is thus relatively low. More than that, by building homes, especially affordable or council homes, it might even be able to make previously untouchable seats just a bit more winnable. If this sounds cynical, consider Conservative attempts to grow new Tory voters through policies like Right to Buy or Help to Buy, or their attempts to funnel money to affluent Tory councils. Some might argue it’s long past payback time. 

There will be fights, inevitably. But the whining about lost green idylls could be addressed by relentless briefing on both the quality and the extent of the land actually involved (just 47,000 hectares, somewhere under 0.2% of all the land in Great Britain). Environmental concerns could be addressed by pointing out that building besides transport links will result in a country much less dependent on cars than our current system of allowing development to jump the green belt, to places where car ownership is all but non-negotiable. Perhaps we could even extend the green belt elsewhere, to increase the extent of protected land, to show that this was not just a developer free for all. 

Many Labour politicians have yet to spot this opportunity, and tend to be just as NIMBYish as their rivals. But increasing housing supply would be the right thing to do, for the economy, the environment, and for Labour’s voters. The next Labour government is likely to find itself so busy it needs a magic bullet. A radical plan to address the housing crisis might just provide one.

The Gratuitous Covid Test Pic & Sales Pitch Bit

As I said at the top, I am currently trapped indoors, with just a dog for company, and Tuesday is my birthday. Boo. So on balance this would be an excellent time to subscribe, if you don’t already.

The Newsletter of (Not Quite) Everything is a weekly newsletter which goes out every Wednesday around 4pm. Become a paying subscriber, and each week you’ll get a bit on politics, some diverting links, an article on history/geography/language/something, and the map of the week. But that’s not all! You’ll also get a warm glow of satisfaction that you’re helping me to write fun and interesting things, not nasty corporate ones. And all for just £4 a month or £40 a year! Ah, go on, go on, go on.

But: we’re all broke right now. If you can’t currently justify paying for some nerd’s substack (unemployed, underemployed, impoverished student, and so forth), just hit reply and ask nicely and I’ll give you a complimentary subscription, no questions asked. 

Alternatively, why not pre-order my new book, out next April? Go on, it’ll make your life better. Or, if you’re not much of a reader, you can hear me each week on the hit podcast Paper Cuts.