This week, Nimby Watch is in Winstanley, in the historical county of Lancashire. But, like certain other people in Winstanley right now, we’ve got our eyes on Westminster…
Okay then, why are we in Winstanley. Where exactly is Winstanley, anyway? Well, if you’re part of the southern Westminster elite, you might say that Winstanley is in Makerfield – the site of what’s being billed as the most consequential by-election in UK political history.
And what about if I’m not one of those Westminster elitist bastards? Then you’d know that no one living anywhere near the area refers to it as ‘Makerfield’ and you’d probably describe it as a suburb of Wigan.
I’m guessing we’re here for the by-election, then. You’re getting good at this! We are: it turns out that a by-election that could cause a change of government might be important for housing policies. Sadly, it looks like the Nimbys are taking an early lead.
Why’s that, then? Well, Labour’s candidate in the seat – who, if you believe the polling and betting markets, is the favourite to win – has come out against building on the green belt. ‘Locally I was with residents in Winstanley last night,’ he said in a TikTok video, ‘talking about local green belt issues and I know we need a change in the borough, shift the burden of development from green fields to the local centres.’
What’s so bad about that? Surely it’s better to build on brownfield than to bulldoze beautiful green belt? You, and any regular readers, know better than that: brownfield building is expensive, slow and often faces huge opposition too. Review after review has shown that without building on green belt land – most of which is low-quality farmland, golf courses, or similarly unremarkable – we’re not going to get anywhere near our housing targets.
So… who exactly is proposing building on Makerfield’s green land? Well, if we’re honest, the push to do so mostly comes from the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who has pushed an aggressive housebuilding policy and largely delivered against them. Building on green belt has been essential to those plans, if controversial. They have also often relied on relaxing affordable housing targets, too. Manchester has lots of new, ‘luxury’ flats.
That sounds like the kind of policy you go wild for. But isn’t throwing out affordable housing targets bad? It depends: if we build hardly any homes but 30% of them are ‘affordable’ – a watered-down measure meaning they are theoretically in reach of public sector workers and others in the area – is that better than building loads of homes with a lower percentage? I’d go for the latter every time.
Sounds like there’s a bit of an ideological clash going on there: no green belt building versus let ‘er rip? Well, there’s a third idea in the mix: the frontrunner for the Labour leadership says that the cost of housing is one of the major challenges facing the issue, and one he plans to tackle – by building lots of council and social housing.
A third challenger has emerged! That sounds like three very different positions on the housing crisis and what needs to be done about it. But, hang on a second, why haven’t you named any of the people involved? I’m sure savvy readers have already guessed why. The Labour candidate for Makerfield is the mayor of Greater Manchester, and is the frontrunner for the Labour leadership. And he does seem to have three very different housing policies, which in places are diametrically opposed to one another.
Well, we do say that we want politicians who are pragmatic, instead of being ideologically blinkered. It’s possible you can have too much of a good thing. Andy Burnham clearly is going to try to adapt his positions to fit in with the voters of Makerfield. That’s just politics. But opposing his own housing policy while he’s still the major of Greater Manchester feels… a bit much. And promising a national housing policy that bears absolutely no resemblance to the much-praised Manchester plan just seems… weird.
Be generous: is there a way to make it make sense? Honestly, no. The green belt stuff isn’t reconcilable, however generous we’re trying to be. Burnham-as-candidate is just openly opposing his own policy as mayor here.
The rest of it… maybe. Burnham enabled lots of private development as mayor, but says he wants lots of social housing to be built if he becomes PM. That’s not necessarily a contradiction, even if it’s not what most of the CapX audience might prefer. Building council housing and social housing could happen alongside lots of private development. Right now, ‘affordable’ housing is a bit of a dodge (invented by the Cameron/Osborne government) that in practice makes it harder to build either. So if you provide investment for new social housing while also encouraging private development by dropping affordability targets…that might work.
So you’re optimistic, then? Well. It would rely on being bold, staking out a position, providing serious investment for it, and then making the argument and sticking to it for years – probably against sustained opposition. You absolutely could not fudge it, or try to please everybody.
That’s a no, then? That is, indeed, a no. But we live in hope, do we not?
This week, Nimby Watch is in for a reckoning… Hey, you. Excuse me? Are you talking to me? Yes, you. I’ve got something you should read. Hang on a minute, shouldn’t you be asking me questions? Are you breaking the format? Damn right I am. Every fortnight, you take me somewhere in the UK, show […]
This week, Nimby Watch is in Danson Park, Bexley, in South East London. But why? I see we’re in a park! You never bring me anywhere nice. It’s a particularly nice park, too! Danson Park, which celebrated its 100th birthday last year, has a lake – which hosts boating and water sports activities – football […]
This week, Nimby Watch is in south-east London, just for a change… Alright then, where have you brought me this week? We’re in rapidly-gentrifying Peckham, in south-east London. Specifically, we’re by the Aylesham Centre, a shopping centre that has clearly seen better days, and they definitely weren’t recent. Hang on a second, haven’t we been […]
