One the most informed and thoughtful journalists is Tim Hartford. (IMO on a par with Paul Johnson,, author of Follow the Money). Harford writes a sound, evidence based column in the Financial Times. So I looked forward to seeing his Channel 4 expose on Monday’s television broadcast Skint: The Truth About Britain’s Broken Economy. And it was, as hoped an excellent, fact based examination of why the British economy is slipping behind its peer group. Harford made the point that we need political leaders who can unlock our growth potential once again. He looked at the barriers to substantial growth held back by infrastructure gaps, in Cambridge’s case by water supply limitations. He pointed out the impact that house building barriers have on releasing growth potential in places like Cambridge. . His, at times forensic examination of blockages to growth was often riveting.
But his unique selling point, which is to follow the evidence, not listen to politicians’ promises in fact failed on this occasion to tell listeners and watchers how to put the growth problem right. This set-back by such a competent and articulate commentator is important. It set me thinking. Why did he miss the target, which in my opinion are the causes of decades of spatial failure and in consequence years of sluggish growth.
Very briefly it helps to restate the barriers to unlocking growth, to building the infrastructure and homes we need in the places needed. Put simply they are only two. One, local opposition to local change. It is by far the biggest barrier. And two, resistance from vested land interests fearful of sequestration. It a far less complex barrier. Opposition from landowners can be neutered or even removed either with money or with time. Opposition from the former, local opponents of local change is far more complex. Without finding a way to turn local opponents of local change into welcoming hosts of local change, the sort of regeneration and productivity unlocking advocated by Tim Harford will not happen.
In earlier blogs I explore the spatial solutions which block change. . Why, I ask myself is this myopic, but mighty barrier to growth overlooked so often? By commentators and by politicians? Why did Tim Harford not go the next step, and put both these two barriers under his microscope? Are politicians anxious at the prospect of criticism of electors? I am unsure. Perhaps these two barriers are not so obvious as I think? After a career stretching over several decades, watching the opponents and the proponents of change lock horns; writing recommendations 30+ years ago for rebalancing local employment growth with matching home building; discovering one spatial activity (new jobs) enjoying high profile local support and the other (new homes) enduring sneaking, insidious opposition; seeking at local plan consultations without success to persuade local councils the length of the Thames Valley to look far ahead; attracting anger and inaccurate criticism of an essay advocating a sustainable, new extension to Reading it seems my eyes see a future where the wins far outnumber the losses and many other eyes do not. Why is this the case?
Ian Campbell
3 July 2024
