As I write this Rachel Reeves is doing the morning media round.
Reeves is explaining to an incredulous world how Labour will deliver growth without spending.
Apparently the answer is to be found in planning reform. By changing planning laws Labour says it will unleash a wave of building across the country.
Please pardon my cynicism, but I instantly recognise the source of this idea because it has been rolled out so often before. That is because it is a perennial favourite of all the far-right Tufton Street so-called think tanks, from the Institute of Economic Affairs (so beloved of Liz Truss) onwards.
The thinking can be summarised very simply. It is that of only the government got out of the way of those wonderful wealth creators who sit in perpetual frustration just waiting for the chance to do anything if only the government would stop interfering on behalf of the environment, the green belt, pesky neighbours and anyone else who wants a say, then we could have a land flowing with milk and honey.
This is, of course, total nonsense whether suggested by Tufton Street or Rachel Reeves. Characterised as ‘supply side reform', the idea is that profit is a higher good than anything else because markets know how to price for the benefit of society better than the state can ever manage to do by interfering, and so market interests must be allowed to progress unfettered.
If this was true we would not have a climate crisis. Do I need to say more?
Reeves appears to have bought this idea, hook, line and sinker, apparently following Truss' advice that she release her inner Conservative.
I despair.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Some planning requirements are quite simply ridiculous.
For example, to make a small development I am getting built fit in with existing houses, planners have made us fit false plastic chimneys at just under grand a pop.
Stupid, eh? Now that’s something worthy of dealing with.
All you are going to see is more of your green space eaten up by rabid developers who will be building in places where there are no bus services, rail, car dependency etc., and infrastructure needs that will despoil the landscape.
In the market town I live in, just under a thousand new homes will be built even though the town’s sewage system cannot cope now (it has to be pumped out by lorries on a regular basis). That did not stop planners from approving the schemes.
So, developers everywhere will be no doubt building willy-nilly here and there and walking away having made money but leaving behind unsustainable and isolated schemes whist brownfield sites litter the country mouldering away. Those selling land will have a windfall – so will Labour tax them?
I don’t know – pig-dung does not even come close to describing Reeves here.
Awful. But what is worse is how these lily-livered ideas debase politics and its potential. Because after politics, what are we left with?
Last year I spoke to people on for different councils (in the context of small town/urban regeneration). Their comments on housing and the property developers closely reflected your comments PSR. Developers with no interest in building affordable homes near to employment with the necessary upgrades to essential services, let alone schools or doctors. Prepared to sit on their land banks for as long as its takes, using their legal resources to beat councils into submission.
Until they can build an estate of executive homes or the lowest grade housing they can get away with.
Down the road from me we have an ex-army town now being redeveloped with lots of new housing. Not a solar panel in sight so one can guess at what else has been left out of their construction. No rail connection and poor public transport so everyone will be driving elsewhere for jobs. I dont know about water and sewage but they have run out of electricity and so are having to lay a major new connection to the grid 8 miles away which will involve closing sections of the main road over the next 2 years. Maybe make that 3 years. Pretty sure that the developers will not be paying for that.
I used to think planning involved time-wasting activities like arranging a water supply, sewage, power, transport etc.
The smooth, silky Mandelson on BBC Radio Scotland GMS on what Labour are going to do to dig ourselves out of the Johnson-Truss-Sunak mess: “this requires a much bigger growth mission than … 1997… [but] funded and driven by private capital and by the private sector, but government has to provide the stability….. and continuity of policy”.
So smooth, so unctuous you scarcely appreciate that he is telling us precisely nothing about precisely how continuation of the policy he has just told us has totally failed is suddenly going to grow the economy or change anything substantive; other than the Party label on the bunch of ill-assorted, badly selected/self-selecting politicians in both parties. None of them; not one of Labour’s crew has the experience, the knowledge of how to grow a failing economy, or are willing to divulge the secret; but lo ….
Despair, Richard, despair.
Indeed
The man is odious
On housing:
The mantra, from both Conservatives and Labour, is that for profit house builders will build many more houses if only government just gets out of the way. Ignoring, for the moment, the essential role that regulation has in preserving the environment etc, it is nonsense that private enterprise alone will ever build sufficient homes.
The country clearly needs many more homes, not just new ones but to replace old housing stock that is becoming not fit for purpose. We need to build sufficient houses so that the price stabilises and then reduces. This is anathema to both parties. And builders will never build sufficient homes that the price starts to reduce. That would reduce their profit margin.
The only way to build sufficient homes is for government to do it.
They need to build new towns, as they did in the past, because you can’t simply graft sufficient homes onto existing small towns (perhaps Ely is becoming a case in point).
You can’t suddenly increase the rate of house building because you need skilled workers. So government needs to ensure sufficient are being trained. Whilst immigration may be a welcome short term stop gap it doesn’t solve the problem.
All of which needs, to coin a phrase, “joined up thinking”, and I see precious little of that from either party.
Is the following too radical? Unrealistic? Unthinkable?
Think-tank people seem to use their brains to indulge an obsession with greed – greed that is relentlessly encouraged by ever-more-pervasive advertising.
Like most of the rest of us in the over-developed world, they did not know about the climate crisis you refer to. Our flights, our motoring and our extravagance have caused, are causing, and will cause, death and destruction so extensive that we have been unwilling to believe that good individuals like you and me – could be the careless perpetrators of such crimes. Our habits are deep-set. We do not want to change – a bit maybe but not much. The entire economy appears to depend on denial of realities.
Few of us knew that burning coal, gas, petrol, diesel, shipping and aircraft fuels was, and is, gradually destroying the human biosphere. Worse, most electricity depends on those fuels.
Most of the ways that we construct and heat buildings require the same fuels.
We did not know – but we do now know – those facts.
If we seriously accept that knowledge, then we could stop using fuels for anything that is not vital, essential, important or critical. Starting with individuals but always seeking action by ever-larger groups and institutions, we could at least begin to work towards:
First, only use fuel to travel for important reasons.
Second, travel only at energy-minimising speeds.
Third, never use fuel for racing.
Fourth, heat buildings carefully.
Fifth, own or use, only one modest dwelling per family.
Sixth, build no more structures in the over-developed economy – OK, maybe a few, but using existing property first.
Seventh, use lighting only for necessity, safety or security.
Eighth, consume no food beyond a wholesome diet.
Ninth, possess only a reasonable minimum of clothing.
Tenth, cut emissions from agriculture – which scientists say is essential to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Eleventh, live simply so that others can simply live, and surely we can live well and still have fun, joy and satisfaction.
If you are still denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change, do try to discover why you are wrong.
Television, radio and sport need to be turned upside down.
Strictly Come Dancing is hugely entertaining … but it is massively extravagant. It brings special treatment to a tiny number of people. Instead, I would like people in every large town in Britain to be encouraged to pursue dancing excellence among as many people who would like to get involved.
Wouldn’t it be good to promote sporting activities in every neighbourhood so that people could still play football or whatever sports against others who live only a few miles away when petrol costs £100 (£1000) per litre and aircraft are only used for planetary prosperity?
What if radio was designed to spread best practice without fossil fuels to every community that wanted to ensure that young people thrive.
Can this knowledge alter our trajectory? Bold actions are certain to work to some extent and they will allow caring people to live with dignity. Lives will be saved. Communities will prosper. Some will survive.
There are groups working on laws regarding unnecessary energy use – they must be vigorously supported.
Thanks
I went by a sports field yesterday morning in a village near here and there was not a person on it
The private sector, particularly as limited companies, are FANTASTICALLY GOOD……
Fantastically good at make profits and keeping hold of them with limited downside risk when things go really wrong.
I am at a complete loss as to why anyone would believe that this motivation should miraculously deliver high quality products/services in all cases.
Now, in some cases it can be excellent, in other cases it does OK – or at least better than central organisation…. but in many cases (particularly life-critical services) it fails dismally.
Why can’t any politician state this obvious truth?
I wish I knew…
It does seem that we have a grave shortage of houses maybe 1.5 to 4 million according to shelter and others. 90% of them should be social and genuinely affordable imo. Obviously they need to be built with good services, public transport etc and where work and shops can be accessed safely by walking or bike or that can be part of the planning requirement . I would prefer greenfield to be used rather than building on urban playing fields green spaces etc if a choice has to be made.We should be greening our towns and cities . We also need to rapidly upgrade our national grid, which requires pylons maybe lots of them, solar farms, onshore and offshore wind turbines,battery storage facilities, and mineral mining all of which will mean unpopular decisions made or more likely unpopular with a minority. So I think planning is complicated but should be relaxed particularly with social housing and renewables which seems to be the case in Scotland.https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23839626.herald-view-scots-affected-wind-farms-must-given-voice/
Why should we be relaxed abou renewables?
What is the sense in that?
I think they meant we should be more open to allowing renewables.
Just a thought, Richard. Kid Starver (h/t Mike Parr) has told everyone that they MUST stay on message, so could it possibly be that Reeves, in her statement, which appears to be imbecilic, is simply following instructions, no matter how ridiculous?
I think Reeves writes the messages
Because I believe we’re in a climate emergency. It apparently takes 10 years or more to get a grid connection to pv and wind farms. I don’t believe we are ever going to get people to rapidly stop using fossil fuels or stop fossil fuel production unless renewables undercut them dramatically in price and provide reliable power when wanted (unfortunately most people won’t accept when someone else decides their when needed). I think we need temporary relaxation of planning for renewables,ie PV wind and pylons with a view that they have to go to planning again in 30 years with no guarantee it is a given.
The most depressing thing for me is that I don’t think Starmer, Reeves and co are being devious pushing these policy arguments. I think they really are just dim/ignorant enough to think they are correct and these policies actually make sense. For people who are obviously intelligent in many areas, it beggars belief that they can have such little understanding of the real world or what occurs within the economy. I suspect Starmer is pig-ignorant about pretty much anything in the economic field and does what Reeves tells him is best. He’s probably really impressed with her BoE credentials and has never thought deeply about any policies which she espouses.
How such intellectual pygmies managed to battle their way to the top of the Labour Party, however, makes me wonder just who exactly has been pulling the strings in the background. Mandelson was obviously involved to some degree (and he certainly knows what he’s doing), but I can’t help but think there must be some other really cynical people in the background working at the behest of big money who know exactly what they are doing.
Stamer and Reeves in tandem will win the next election and destroy the reputation of the Labour Party (such as it is at present) in the process. I only hope that, at some point, we somehow end up with PR of some form so that we have an option to vote for candidates from more than 2 or 3 inept parties and still have our votes count for something.
If the LibDems have anything about them, they’ll pivot further to the left now. I doubt they have anything about them.
Following up my previous post, after a little more thought, I think the LibDems might well be the only route to get a proper critique of Labour’s nonsensical economic guff into the media.
Normally, you’d expect the main opposition party to point out that the Emperor (in waiting) had no clothes, but to do so, the Tories would need to admit they had been strutting around bollock-naked for decades. That’s never going to happen.
The Greens mean well and will get some leverage in the run up to the next election but, sad to say, they are seen as almost a single-issue party and currently, the media won’t listen seriously to what they say about the economy.
Therefore, the only way you are going to get a counter-narrative reported and discussed, is if the other ‘main’ party is willing to speak out against the neoliberal consensus which is in place. I think we’re going to be out of luck, unfortunately, as I think the LibDems are wedded to it themselves. The catastrophic coalition years were based on their support of the Tory narrative on austerity and they wear their centrist credentials for so avidly that they will track to the right as Labour does.
This brings me flashbacks to 2010 and 2015 when the Tory attack plan was to blame Labour spending for the global financial crisis. At the time, Labour were maddeningly unwilling to even try to debunk this ludicrous narrative. Given what has happened during the Starmer years, I’m beginning to wonder if it’s because some of those behind the scenes believed it themselves…
Reading the comments below one of the puff pieces about Reeves on the Guardian earlier and, along with the usual criticism of the Tories, there was nary a voice offering anything but praise for her. Lots of comments about how nice it was to have a ‘serious’ economist involved. Not the way I spell ‘clueless’, that’s for sure.
How is it going to be possible to pressure Labour to start making sense when the right and their press tacitly agree with what they say and the friendly commentators on the left do nothing more than create an echo chamber?
I’m getting more depressed the more I think about it.
Sunak has released his Inner Conservative. Rob Powell (Sky News) has reported that: “It’s always been an unspoken rule of conference season that each party gives the other a free run and doesn’t stage media events while their opposite numbers are gathering. Not so this year.
Rishi Sunak made the trip to a Currys electronic repair warehouse in Nottinghamshire to take questions from workers. He also turned up for a live radio interview, while the chancellor is being punted out to respond to Labour’s economic plans.”
Oh well, longstanding political protocols being sacrosanct are scarcely going to survive a Conservative Party in a hole. Not for a second. Standards for Conservatism are on wheels. Spin, dear boy spin is the new decency; and the Conservatives own the Press, which sets the political agenda. The real standard of politics is ‘who cares, who remembers’? But hey, “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level” still resonates when it doesn’t matter whether it is true; as long as you have blanket press coverage for the spin.
We soon enough realised with Sunak’s unblinking seven bins or meat tax guff, just to take the most brazenly absurd; they don’t apply at every level. HS2, and now this remind us, if we had any wavering doubt – they don’t apply at any level.
Am I the only person wishing it were easier to obtain a serviced plot on which I could self-build or have a custom built kit home rather than be limited to what it suits developers to mass produce. I can’t help wondering if, given the chance to do that, people might actually choose more modest options and certainly more energy efficient ones given that they could consider what they actually needed. A new estate of 48 uninspiring boxes without solar panels has been completed outside the previous development boundary of our village. I’m pretty sure anyone applying to build a single custom built property on a corner of that land would have been refused as the policy is additional property should be within the development boundary, but why could 48 serviced plots not have been available for people to do their own thing, with priority given to locals? The heart of the village grew organically and is an eclectic mix of properties from different eras, so an argument for uniformity is not valid.
Beth Rigby (Sky News) clearly agrees with you Richard: “Rachel Reeves delivering a speech to a Labour conference that could have been read out by a Tory chancellor”.
Spot on
MSM clearly getting behind Labour, this fawning comment piece from Paul Waugh in the “I”
‘When she declared “we are ready to serve, we are ready to lead,” some in the conference hall may have felt they’d glimpsed the future: not just of the first female Chancellor, but of the first female Labour leader.’
https://link.news.inews.co.uk/view/5eb3fe5d459ed1210555d36bjmogj.peo/39d32b7b
Heaven help us…