New Housing and the Ideology of Politicians

While there are few people I would rather not have as Prime Minister than Keir Starmer, many of the policies to get houses built are long-needed efforts to tackle problems which have been unaddressed for decades.

Throughout that time, the Green Belt has been talked about as though it was designated sunlit uplands when, in reality, it’s just a gap between settlements – and much of it is poor quality.

So, in the PR battle, Grey Belt is an excellent description of land which could be built on. Whoever coined the phrase must have been taking advice from whoever came up with the term ‘brownfield land’.

That one conjures up images of derelict pre-war factories being replaced by much-needed homes, distracting those who might otherwise think of it as our manufacturing heritage being swept away for expensive flats because we don’t make anything anymore. A masterful way to sell a concept.

Nowadays everyone wants brownfield land built on and I’ve little doubt they’ll soon want Grey Belt land built on too. Once that’s all gone, they’ll need to think hard about another colour with negative connotations.

While these policies will likely get houses built, the Government’s emboldened status, backed by its huge majority, is being reflected in the approach of developers and their representatives.

Take a look at the July 9th meeting of Thurrock Council’s planning committee and note the tone of the applicants in each of two proposed, major housing developments.

These two three-minute speeches can be seen in the webcast here starting at 00:29:23 and 01:16:58.

Rather than try to persuade the committee, representatives from Mulberry Strategic Land and Grasslands cared little for what the councillors thought and basically challenged the committee to refuse their schemes. Their basic theme was, ‘the Government is on our side’.

As it happens both were refused and committee chair, Cllr. Michael Fletcher (a Labour member), ended up calling for more respect from applicants. But my money is on the developer at any subsequent appeal.

Where the concept of emboldened developers takes us is hard to predict, but emboldened politicians are rarely a good thing.

And few people in Government are as drunk on their new power as the Energy Minister, Ed Miliband. A lifelong ideologue, Miliband has already waved through the Sunnica solar farm – the U.K.’s biggest so far – banned new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and scrapped the ban on onshore wind farms in England.

How anyone took seriously his election campaign pledge to cut energy bills by £300 is hard to grasp.

In Miliband’s Net Zero obsession, the gigantic cost is not a factor, nor is the countryside, the loss of farmland or the people who live near the swathes of photovoltaic panels and wind turbines that will likely characterise open space in the U.K. in the next few years.

Nothing gets in the way of his single-minded drive to rely upon unreliable energy. Nowhere in his head is the thought that the U.K. is not the most sun-soaked country in the world, so solar panels here might not be the most efficient.

As for what happens to wind energy when the wind doesn’t blow seems almost too obvious a question, but this is 2024. What passes for an opposition in the U.K. would never ask anything so impertinent. Switching to air source heat pumps and electric vehicles has no downside for these people. Nor would they suggest the rising U.K. population is adding to the housing crisis.

They will just continue to admire the Emperor’s new clothes until the ideology and reality come face to face.

Historian Morris Berman once said: “An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you.”

We might get more houses built, but when the ideologues are in charge, the cost may well outweigh the benefits.

Alan Bunce is the Editor of regional property website Thames Tap. This article was first published on the U.K. Property Forums website.