Housing for the many (just not near you!)

By Vincent Carroll-Battaglino, Senior Account Manager

According to its Twitter, the Labour Party is now the Party of the Nimby. How, why, and will it stick?

So much of political calculus in a two-party first-past-the-post system is very simple. Essentially, how many votes can we gain from the other side by tacking to the centre (A), and how much support will that shed from our heartlands (B). 

Like the narrator’s formula for car recalls in Fight Club, if A is larger than B, go for it. If not, don’t. This doesn’t stop parties calling things wrong all the time, but when parties are no longer a mass membership way of life, it’s the essential formula.  

The Conservative capture of the Red Wall is old news, so commentator comment pages turn to the trouble in holding on to the Blue Wall. By nakedly prioritising spending on “the North”, how much support do they lose through the back door in their traditional shire strongholds?

Last year’s Planning White Paper was always going to be an issue for the Conservatives in their heartlands. Essentially, the Party has realised, in that most pragmatic conservative way, that more homes must happen. But enough of their traditional base has homes and doesn’t want any more near their own, thanks. The Labour Party’s response was characteristic. It’s “a developer’s charter”, i.e., it will prevent delivery of the good things that may come out of their profit margin, like infrastructure, affordable housing, playspace. On 17 June, the Conservatives lost the Chesham and Amersham by-election, possibly the first casualty of the Planning White Paper.

And here we come to the political opportunism of the aimless opposition. Instead of facing up to reality in its Red Wall heartlands, within days of the Chesham and Amersham the Labour Party tweeted a perfect image of rural English idyll with the message “Do you want developers building on your green spaces without your say? Boris Johnson does”. The gathering strains of the second movement of Dvorak’s “From the New World” symphony were drowned out by an online reaction that was swift, brutal, and deserved. It contradicts everything the Party has been saying for years on development, and its urban heartland wants more homes built (in theory, of course, but that’s another article).

The problem with Labour trying this tack is that it will necessitate them saying one thing in one area, and the direct opposite in another. The Lib Dems have done that for years – and are guilty of it over HS2 in Chesham and Amersham. It’s a pretty successful strategy for 20 or 30 seats and the odd stunning byelection result. We presume Labour is still aiming higher than that.

It is highly likely the Labour Party’s conversion to nimbyism was a temporary aberration, at least if the Fight Club car recall formula is applied. Its candidate achieved a paltry 622 votes (1.6 per cent) in Chesham and Amersham, the lowest ever share of the vote for a Labour candidate in a byelection. This begs the question, how much can Labour realistically expect to gain from obviously opportunistic nimbyism? Our bet is Labour will continue to oppose the Planning White Paper, but it will revert to playing to the crowd about big bad capitalists.