by More power for the unions. Windfall additional taxes. And a big increase in the levels of regulation. Little has been done about the Labor Party’s economic program to inspire any confidence that a government led by Sir Keir Starmer will do anything to improve the gloomy prospects of the British economy.
This was there, though. The party was committed to finally confronting the Nimbys and building the new homes the country needs. Amidst all the guff about “seroeconomics”, “stability”, and “green investment”, Labor would at least build more houses.
In his conference speech last year, Starmer promised to “bulldoze” through the restrictive planning system, build “the next generation of new Labor towns”, ushering in “a decade of national renewal”.
With not many votes to worry about in the leafy suburbs, and no troublesome backbenchers trying to protect the green belts in their constituencies, Labor would be able to remove all the obstacles put before housebuilders by 14 last year. Conservative rule.
In fairness, amidst the rhetorical hype, there was even an element of truth to it. Labor might be able to achieve something that no middle-class party that relied on elderly property owners ever could.
And yet, in what may soon become a depressingly familiar pattern, as soon as Labor comes close to anything resembling a good idea, Angela Rayner comes in to kill it.
In a speech to developers and investors on Monday, the deputy leader of the party set out a series of conditions for the new towns he aims to build.
They will include “buildings with character”, “guaranteed public transport and public services”, and “green spaces”, and every third street will include a statue of Nye Bevan to celebrate the NHS (ok, ok maybe I made that one up, but you get the general idea).
But Rayner also threw in a deadly twist. Apparently, all new towns under the new Labor government will also have to take into account a 40pc target for affordable housing.
Seriously? Of course, we don’t know exactly what the party means by “affordable”. But we can guess. “Affordable” probably means that close to half of the new homes will have to be sold below their market value. Otherwise, you could leave it to the developer to sell each house at whatever price it happened to be. Basically, it means that houses will be sold for less than the price they would otherwise fetch.
There are two major problems with this. Firstly, it will mean that no healthy company will want to build any of the “new towns” promised by Labour. They will pay all the costs of acquiring the land, hiring the architects, bringing in the brick layers, roofing and electricians needed to put them up, and then Rayner will come with them and tell them what the price will be which can charge many of the. completed houses.
Where they are unlikely to make a profit, accusations of “making a profit”, perhaps at the expense of “key workers” in the public sector, will be inevitable. It’s hard to see it being worth the hassle.
Then, it shows that the party, even under its reformist leadership, has no idea how the economy really works. The way any product becomes more “affordable” is by producing more of it, usually more efficiently.
That’s why we have “affordable” smartphones, and “affordable” TV sets, and lots of “affordable” ready meals at the local supermarket. In fact, we used to have “affordable” cars as well, until the green ideologies came along with targets, quotas, and rules setting out what we can and cannot drive, and how the vehicle should be to drive.
As is often the case, this is completely upside down with Rayner. Homes will be more “affordable” when we have more of them, not when the government sets a price.
If anyone needs any proof of that, they need only look across the Channel. France, a country with a similar population, builds almost twice as many new homes every year as we do in the UK. And – surprise you! – prices are much more affordable. Heck, who knows, maybe that would work in this country too.
The “new towns” policy is definitely dead in the water now. Nothing will be taken. At the same time, we can be sure that Labor will raise immigration at least to the same extremely high levels seen under the Conservatives and possibly even higher.
It is clear that its “safe and legal” routes for asylum seekers, although it could be argued that they are “more convenient”, will increase the number of applicants; it will undermine the demands of its supporters in higher education to keep the number of foreign students at record levels; and it will allow employers, particularly in the health service and care homes, to continue to bring in all the foreign workers they argue they need.
Add it all up, and the population will rise, although there will be no obvious increase in the supply of new homes.
The result? As even Angela Rayner should be able to work out, the housing crisis will get worse and worse – and the Labor government will only be to blame.
