Instead of a Conservative housing policy that emphasises home ownership and architectural beauty, it will now be done the Labour way. When tower blocks start rising over the Home Counties, I hope that our remaining MPs realise their mistake.
From Canada to Montana to New Zealand, centre-right parties have found different ways to break the grip of NIMBY gatekeepers and build the homes people need – and are reaping the electoral reward.
The row over nutrient neutrality rules was an important test of the Opposition’s willingness to confront the vetocracy that ensures we get nothing built – and they failed it.
These latest proposed changes should not be seen as a retrograde step or a desire to weaken the Habitat Regulations, but seen as a pragmatic and ecologically sound approach to the current impasse.
The UK’s cheapest project is only barely cheaper than France’s most expensive; on average, Brits pay two and a half times more (on a per mile basis) than their French counterparts to build the same length of track.
My experience of taking an agri-tech start-up into three countries has shown me what can be achieved, but also the very real hurdles our innovators face here in the UK.
In my area, ill-judged EU rules have helped see all development blocked for nine years, exacerbating the housing crisis whilst doing little to actually protect the environment.
Even without withdrawing from or renegotiating the Aarhus Convention, there is scope for the Government to raise cost limits, and thus reduce friction and costs in the planning system.
The TCPA made a radical departure from the planning regulations that had gone before by introducing the concept of planning permission to Britain. Before the act, if you owned a piece of land, you could largely do what you wanted with it.
In the 2019 election, all four major party manifestos presented Net Zero as a fait accompli: none made clear the upheaval it demands, the opportunity costs involved or the dramatic impact on our quality of life.
Although there is a clear ‘Sunak Effect’ among voters, running a presidential-style campaign exposes the Conservatives to the same risks as almost 80 years ago.
Both the wish to improve education and to offer more help to families require more public spending, not less. Such proposals only make sense if government is willing to be tougher in other areas.
When our political class feels that it cannot act, it cobbles together ad-hoc explanations for why its apathy is actually cunning strategy, hard-headed pragmatism, or just somehow grown-up.
The sixth part of our series on reducing demand for government, in which we set out a programme for change – focused on families, civil society and government.