The Conservative Party leader this week appointed Sir James Cleverly as her new shadow housing minister. He is said to be a shadow cabinet heavy-weight. If this means the Tories under Kemi Badenoch are taking the housing issue seriously his appointment is good news. It also means they are no longer running away from the conflicts housing debates ignite. His arrival therefore sends an encouraging signal. Whilst Labour are substantially united in their drive for economic growth, and addressing the local land use minefields building new homes and infrastructure powers up, the Tories are far behind. Because they are divided the Conservatives turn tail when anything to do with the built environment emerges. Their standard justification is spatial planning equates to soviet style centralisation of state control. Or others say, simply leave it to the free market Keith Joseph model. The inconsistency of this model whilst also relying on strict land rationing controls and exploiting the consequences is ignored. Many Conservatives supporters seem oblivious to the dangers crude smashing of consistency raises. It means claims they are a party of integrity look weak.
. The only two exceptions to this condemnation I have seen is Michael Gove’s brave decision two years ago to put the trebling in size of Cambridge onto the national agenda. For which he deserves full credit. Before that Boris Johnson, for all his buffoonery at least tried to find a way forward, with his endorsement of land use planning through zoning of land uses. It is a method of allocation of uses used extensively used throughout Europe. To the non expert, it seems to deliver land use change without our toxicity of debate. So Johnson also deserves recognition for a serious and sensible attempt to produce a fair reform of broken system.
Kemi Badenoch is also now producing encouraging noises. For example she wants her party to stop being a repository of disenchantment and instead be one offering hope: becoming the party she says that will fix problems. Well if she can with Cleverly’s help fix the English housing price crisis then she deserves help. This is what I said a few days ago in a LinkedIn comment about Rachel Wolf’s sensible piece in The Observer (19 July 2025); To solve the housing crisis will take some pain.
‘ Only radical solutions will break the log jam. Here are three. One, pay residents in host areas who take overspill. Two, surcharge residents in the export areas who don’t accept their share. Three, nationalise the next generations’ building land so their development value goes back to their local communities. Only then can councils deliver on their promises to promote spatial controls and pocket land value growth. And government growth policies will actually happen. Without radical change we all face another decade of stasis, with slums to come for the youngsters’.
For the Tories to change direction, they must overcome hurdles that look insurmountable. The Tories are welded to two powerful, well-funded and well advised pressure groups. Both are veteran lobbies opposed to change. Both reap benefits from the broken planning system. Some might say they own the soul of the Tory Party. Local residents, mainly home owners, fear unknown and unexpected building near them will undermine the value of their homes. It is a legitimate concern, They also fear local change will over-burden local services. And they do not see any benefit for them. These fears are valid concerns. Many also seem unmoved by the plight of the next generation. The financial bonanza they have pocketed through nearly five decades of rampant house price inflation is long forgotten, or simply pocketed as if an inheritance of entitlement. For example, my first home, purchased in 1968 is now worth 100 times more than I paid long ago. The shrewd opponents of new building also change their labels, sometimes choosing to become nature’s conservationists. . Others choose to forget their civic localities , prefer ideological activism, on the right or in the left in phoney pursuit of ideological differences that have no spatial legitimacy.
The second group are even more powerful. Because they have the deep pockets. They are veterans at playing their version of ‘spatial’ Monopoly. For them the game goes by the clumsy and difficult to understand title ‘call for sites’. I am not going to explain the rules of ‘call for sites’ game. If you do not know the rules you are not invited to play. They are the landowners, the builders and developers of land who have gained control of what they believe will be the next round of building sites. They are the selected players. .Being well advised, most of them will be winners. A few will be losers. The winners can expect lottery sized prizes.
Kemi Badenoch’s new team want to fix the housing problem. Hurrah for this evidence of inclusivity. Home prices and rents running at about twice affordable levels is a massive problem to the young generation. Keir Starmer’s team also want much the same: re-start economic growth, which means lots of new building in lots of controversial places. Wait a few weeks and the government’s New Towns Taskforce will announce ten or more locations for new towns or substantial new urban extensions. This announcement will be a dramatic moment of schizophrenia for Kemi Badenoch’s team. Will new Tories support the national need for economic growth, or will they their close ties to local pressure groups and and the house building lobby take precedence? A credible promise to support the government’s growth agenda , if investors see sincerity, some humbleness of regret for past errors and an enduring commitment to national priorities could be transformative. Such a change could usher-in a new era of prosperity for old and young alike.
Because the political truth is this. The rules of delivery are non-negotiable. Labour cannot deliver their own hopes and aspirations for change without lasting cross-party support in Westminster. The evidence since the seventies is that the Tories will always revert to their historic comfort zone. Which is resistance to change. On the ground, locally, they will once again oppose Labour’s plans for change. Their supporters will insist on opposition because of misplaced fear of the financial consequences of popular change. In doing so they will forfeit the support of those groups Badenoch and Cleverly seek to recruit: those who rent, those who want to buy but cannot and those who live at home. So they too will once again demonstrate they cannot fix spatial problems. The disenchantment they fear will grow. It will be fatal to their hopes of capturing more of the youth vote. Simply put, her plans for the future will wither.
Fixing problems like home building. It needs a lot of courage. It needs effective powers of persuasion to successfully resist these deeply rooted forces of egocentricity. All the same, I wish them good luck. The nation needs them to succeed. Our children and our grandchildren will pay the price of failure.
Ian Campbell
26 July 2025
