Gary Powell: No Conservative council leader should lambast a female Labour MP for defending women’s sex-based rights.

20 Sep

Gary Powell is a former councillor in Buckinghamshire.

The Conservative Party’s drift towards the accommodation and endorsement of wokeism and extreme gender ideology is something the electorate may one day cause it to regret. In this new era of identity politics insanity, the very definition of “woman” has come under attack, to the extent that insisting biological men cannot really become women, can set the pitchfork mob off on a mission of reputational destruction.

Regardless of what kind of mysterious inner ontology anyone claims to possess, our common language is clear about the definition of male and female humans, and evolution has made us adept at recognising the difference between the two without requiring the inspection of anyone’s putatively “gendered” soul or needing to ask what anyone’s pronouns are.

Woe betide you, however, if you are a woman and you have the temerity to assert, as did Labour’s Rosie Duffield MP, that “only women have a cervix”. Male heretics may get off more lightly, but if you are a woman who says this, you risk all Hell being unleashed against you in this appalling age.

Which brings me to the recent public rebuke of Duffield by Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding, the new Leader of Canterbury City Council.

Earlier this month, Fitter-Harding wrote for Kent Online, where he shared inter alia how pleased he was to have been elected as council leader as an openly gay man. He announced his intention to speak at the forthcoming Pride Canterbury, which he described as “an incredibly important day for supporting diversity and inclusion”.

Now, when you have been a gay rights activist for as long as I have, you will know that, these days, “diversity and inclusion” means “unquestioning conformity on pain of exclusion”, making you vulnerable if you do not submit to every tenet of the LGBTQ+ gender politics credo. Orwell was remarkably prescient regarding the rainbow Newspeak.

Duffield is a courageous MP who, in this oppressive and increasingly totalitarian identity politics culture, realises how important the recognition of biological reality is for human rights. In his article, however, Fitter-Harding informs us that, “Members of our [LGBTQ+] community are still hurting, and they need us now more than ever.” He goes on to denounce Duffield as a perpetrator of this misery inflicted on the LGBTQ+ “community”, which has added so many letters and identities to its name that the fact it ever started off as “gay and lesbian” before it was colonised by extreme gender ideology and whatever else, seems to have become an irrelevance.

Duffield, so Fitter-Harding tells us, “has once again come under fire for liking transphobic tweets” and he accuses her of “supporting sweeping claims about who can and who cannot be a woman”. He continues:

That this woman in particular, who was so celebrated by the LGBTQ+ community when she defeated Julian Brazier in 2017, could now inflict such pain upon it is something many of us find hard to bear.

Such pain” … “hard to bear”? Is he serious? Gay people in Afghanistan are now at risk of being stoned or crushed to death by the Taliban. That is what I find “hard to bear”: not hearing the standard definition of the word “woman”.

Kent Online later published a piece reporting on Duffield’s Twitter response to these preposterous accusations. Although the mob was first set off when Ms Duffield opined that “only women have a cervix”, the Initialism Inquisition later took grave offence once again, leading to a clamouring that she should lose the Labour whip, after she had “liked” yet another tweet that had not received the LGBTQ+ imprimatur of approval: a tweet that had criticised the use of the appalling word “queer” by the LGBTQ+ lobby and had rejected the suggestion that a heterosexual can suddenly become homosexual simply by asserting a different “gender”.

Duffield’s Twitter thread defence included the following:

I have actively fought for gay rights (and all human rights) all of my life. A fact that is well-known, well-documented and everyone who knows me can testify. I chose to make my first MP speech, after less than 2 hours sleep, at Canterbury’s first Pride event. It went viral…

I also have feminist and gender critical beliefs which mean that whilst I’ve always fully supported the rights of all trans people to live freely as they choose, I do not accept self-ID as a passport for male-bodied biological men to enter protected spaces for biological women.

That includes DV [domestic violence] refuges, women’s prisons, single-sex wards and school toilets. I believe the majority of people also support this view. The mostly male aggression and verbal abuse about this has resulted in changes to my personal safety and security arrangements…

That is misogyny. Some angry strangers, none of whom have ever met me, have decided what I believe and that it is ‘transphobic’, which seems to others piling on to be the worst of all possible crimes. My sins? To agree that male-bodied people should not be included in lists of murdered women; to have ‘liked’ tweets such as Piers Morgan’s ‘You mean women?’ when he read a health advice post about ‘people with a cervix’.

While there may be a very small number of people who now identify as men and still have female organs, the vast majority of women should not have to rename our bodies or ourselves accordingly. We have fought forever for our own names, our own spaces, to own our own bodies, our rights and our votes. As have all gay people too.

If my views of feminism, women’s rights and women’s basic physical safety offend some men like this cllr (or this newspaper) then that reflects pretty badly on him. I did not ask him what his views were on women’s rights. But this newspaper did not hesitate to print them anyway, despite not asking me for my views…

“I will continue to support LGBT rights as I have done all of my life, whether stranger men (sic) say so or not. Erasure of women’s views, voices, and work in the community is why feminism is now more important than ever and misogyny such as this is growing. We must always speak up.”

Just a day after Duffield posted her Twitter thread, it was announced by Steerpike in the Spectator that the threat to her personal safety had caused her to decide not to attend the Labour Party conference. So much for freedom of expression and association in today’s Britain: continuously eroded on the Conservative watch, no less.

Fitter-Harding’s public condemnation of Duffield for her sensible beliefs may well have also had a chilling effect on councillors in the Conservative Group of which he is Leader, and those who agree with Duffield on this issue will now surely fear similar censure, and even sanction, should they make their views known.

The Conservative Party is becoming increasingly anti-conservative as it panders to socially destructive lobby groups. A cross-party pushback against this insane and vicious cultural vandalism is, however, growing apace; and brave people on the Left such as Duffield, who are fighting back valiantly, deserve the full support of every conservative.

Alex Morton: Ministers can have more houses or higher immigration. But they won’t be able to get away with both.

21 Jun

Alex Morton is Head of Policy at the Centre for Policy Studies, and is a former Number Ten Policy Unit Member.

A very large part of the Chesham and Amersham result was driven by the shamelessly and ruthlessly NIMBYist approach of the Liberal Democrats on both housing and HS2.

As Ed Davey put it just before the election, “we are seeing a promising number of Conservatives switching to us, because they want to say no… we don’t want these planning reforms.”

This now-notorious Lib Dem leaflet sets out the strategy: no policies bar opposing development. MPs who campaigned state the issues on the doorstep were new housing and HS2. Pure NIMBYism is a powerful force in the South of England.

So how do the Conservatives tackle the issue? The Government certainly needs to adjust its course – but it cannot ditch planning reform altogether. Ultimately, we still desperately need more homes, especially in London and the South-East where pressures are greatest. The current reforms contain a great deal of good.

But the truth is another issue sits alongside planning, which Westminster is not focusing on, but which sits on voters’ and MPs minds when contemplating new homes: immigration.

The politics of new homes in London and the South is complicated

A critical political argument for new housebuilding is it will protect the Conservatives majority longer term. Homeowners vote Tory, renters don’t. The argument made to Southern MPs is more homes and more homeowners will secure their electoral base.

But, while correct on a macro scale, this argument is not necessarily so on the micro. Many MPs note that the new homes built in their constituencies are often most attractive to, and affordable for, those leaving London. But as London’s housing pressures spill over into the Home Counties, so do London’s political attitudes.

This helps to explain why commuter constituencies like Canterbury and Bedford are becoming marginals: internal migration drives up anti-Conservative ex-London voter numbers. While Brexit accelerated this, between 2010 and 2015 Outer London (the ‘doughnut’ that twice elected Boris Johnson as Mayor) swung from Tory to Labour, even as the rest of the country moved the other way.

In the North, nice new homes often bring Tory voters – as Peter Mandelson noticed revisiting his old Hartlepool seat.  But new housing in the south annoys existing Conservative voters without always bringing new ones.  The conversion process will still probably work longer-term, as new voters relax into home ownership and shed London attitudes.  But MPs understandably think in five or ten year horizans.

Making things worse, many Southern MPs face not Labour, but the Lib Dems or the Greens, boasting to middle-class voters they are pro-immigration (unlike ‘nasty’ Tories), while also shamelessly arguing they will block new homes locally. Labour cannot do this, as it knows that it must deliver if it wins.

Meanwhile, Tory-inclined voters are susceptible to another simple message: new homes are only needed due to migration. They feel the problem is hundreds of thousands of new arrivals a year, who need extra homes, meaning concreting over the South-East.

The current system of housing targets enables a dishonest political debate

So how do Conservatives tackle this problem? This, I am afraid, is where it gets technical. But it first involves admitting voters have a point about immigration.

Currently, Government housing targets are based on a 2014 estimate (using data from 2012-2014) that we are creating 214,000 new households a year. Various tweaks are done to turn this household number into a housing target, including adjustments based on affordability. The end result is a national target for new housing of 297,000 a year.

The 214,000 households figure assumes net international migration (i.e. the difference between those arriving and leaving) of around 170,000 people annually (see here). So, under current estimates, around 37 per cent of all new homes are needed due to net international migration (see here). So the anti-immigration lobby have a point. But even with zero net migration, we would need many more homes.

However, immigration is very clearly pushing up the numbers needed, and has a disproportionate effect in the South. For the key years 2012-2014, around 50-60 per cent of net international migration went to London, the South East, and the East. This pushed up their housing need most. Even pre-pandemic, London’s population would be falling without international migration, but international migration drives it back up, rippling out over time in terms of housing targets across the South.

Why does this matter politically? It shows it is logically absurd for any party to promise both higher levels of net immigration and yet lower housebuilding in the South. But that is exactly what the Lib Dems and Greens do. And they get away with it because of the current lack of transparency around housing need calculations.

We need to include net migration figures in the local plans

We’d need more homes even if with zero net migration – because we have not built enough for years. As I pointed out in my day job at the Centre for Policy Studies, the 2010s were the worst modern decade for housebuilding – and every decade has got worse since the 1960s.

But one way for the Conservatives to change the politics of planning – and show their immigration controls are crucial – is a clearer link between migration numbers and local housing need. The new Planning Bill should ensure that each local plan periodically adjusts housing targets and housing need in line with net migration. This would inject honesty into the housing debate.

As noted, current housing plans are based on net international migration of 170,000 a year. If net migration fell to 50,000, we would need 60,000 fewer homes a year (assuming roughly one home for two new people). If it rose to 350,000, it would mean 90,000 more homes each year.

If the Liberal Democrats, or the Greens, want to argue for more immigration nationally, it should be clear this means more homes in each area. This would fundamentally change the debate in the South. In Chiltern District Council, home to Chesham and Amersham, the difference between annual national net immigration going down to 50,000 or up to 300,000 would be several thousand extra homes in the next ten years. Pro-migration, NIMBY parties would have to choose.

The worst outcome would be higher net immigration and weakened planning reform

The worst outcome for home ownership is higher net immigration plus weaker planning reform. Yet in the wake of Chesham & Amersham, this seems very likely. Currently, annual net migration is running at 281,000 – or around 110,000 more people a year than 2014 projections. This means 55,000 more homes a year since the 2014 projections – more than the entire rise planned last year after the planning reform row.

Higher migration but no planning reform is also the worst possible result for the Conservative Party. It would exacerbate London and the South’s problems – creating new voters who don’t vote Tory through higher migration, annoying existing Tory voters with new homes, but not delivering enough home ownership to capture new voters.

Housing numbers and migration are an example of Morton’s political triangle. You cannot please everyone. Government policy is currently pro-migration (in numbers not rhetoric) and pro-housebuilding. Both positions put off voters in Chesham. Yet ditching planning reforms while keeping higher migration dooms the Tories in London and the South longer term. The best shot for the Conservatives in the South is more homes and lower immigration – and this, not ditching planning reform, should be their next step.

Amanda Milling: The Boundary Review will strengthen our democracy by ensuring that every vote counts the same

8 Jun

Amanda Milling is the Member of Parliament for Cannock Chase and co-Chairman of the Conservative Party.

Our democracy allows eligible voters up and down the country the chance to have their voice heard by voting for a representative they believe will best make decisions on their behalf.

But crucially it gives everyone eligible to vote, 18 and over, an equal vote and an equal say. Or, at least, it should do.

However, the constituency boundaries as they presently stand fail to ensure that a vote counts the same in one area as it does in another, even just a few miles away.

This is because the present constituency boundaries are based on data that is already 20 years old. Without the changes to the boundaries, by the time of the next election this data would be a quarter of a century out of date and by the time the next government conducted a review and implementing boundary change, the information will be more than three decades out of date.

At the moment some constituencies have twice as many electors as others. Bristol, having over 100,000, whist the smallest, Stoke-on-Trent Central – has a little over 55,000. It is also true that after the 2017 election, our party would have won a significantly greater number of seats if constituency sizes were equalised and updated, removing the unfair bias in the outdated system.

There is almost unanimous acknowledgement that the status quo is neither fair, nor sustainable.

The Boundary Review that is being undertaken by the independent and judge-led Boundary Commissions, with extensive public consultation, is looking to reset all of this.

This review isn’t about the party building a power base in any part of the country, nor to make it harder for opposition parties to make gains, but about ensuring that Parliamentary boundaries are equally sized and based on up to date figures.

By making sure we have Parliamentary boundaries which finally take account of the huge population change which has taken place in parts of the country, we are ensuring that each constituent will know that their vote counts the same as their neighbour’s. It also delivers on our promise at the 2019 General Election to strengthen our democracy by ensuring every vote counts the same.

I know that for some this review could bring unexpected change. Representing a seat is a unique privilege, and often a very personal one. I have represented Cannock Chase for six years and still feel pride in the community each time my train from London pulls into the station.

Each of us who are MPs will know like the back of our hands every community hall and summer fête. We will see families in the supermarket who we have supported and we will have listened to campaign groups on whose behalf we have spoken out in the House of Commons.

No one wants to lose any constituent who they have been privileged to represent and who has been part of their community.

MPs are rightly proud, and fiercely defensive of their own patch where they have canvassed doors and worked hard for years, so the thought of change at a local level will raise concerns, even if we can all broadly agree to the concept of the changes.

Equally, for long-standing Conservative associations built on boundaries that have been in place for decades it will require some adjustment. Associations take pride in their area, in their membership, and many still operate active ward associations.

But I am confident that our hardworking and committed association officers have what it takes to adapt — and we are committed to supporting them along the way.

Over the course of this pandemic, I have seen fantastic examples of associations being at the forefront of adapting and improving, working together on events and fundraising. I have joined scores of Zoom quizzes, welcomed colleagues as guest speakers and met hundreds of members and activists at Q&As. And we will continue to adapt.

For some these proposed changes will be challenging and that’s why we will be listening and working with colleagues in Parliament and across the party to hear any of the concerns people may have.

As the consultation period begins on these initial proposals we need to come together to collectively work out how we can make the proposals work.  We will make formal submissions in response to the Boundary Commissions initial proposals. MPs, associations, organisations and individuals will also all be able to make representations during the consultation phases. I have no doubt there will be changes from the initial proposals as additional local concerns and counter proposals are taken into account.

These equal and updated boundaries are sensible and necessary. They are the consequence of a manifesto which was written with fairness and uniting the whole country written into every pledge. They make sure everyone’s vote from Cumbria to Canterbury, Dover to Darlington carries equal weight at a General Election.

The Conservative Party will now collectively engage with the independent Boundary Commissions’ extensive consultation process, to ensure all parts of the United Kingdom are fairly represented in the UK Parliament.

Rama Thirunamachandran: Modern universities and their graduates are a necessity, not a luxury, in a post-Covid Britain

3 Feb

Professor Rama Thirunamachandran is Vice-Chancellor and Principal of Canterbury Christ Church University and Chair of MillionPlus. This is a sponsored post by MillionPlus.

Like every sector, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has been felt acutely across higher education in 2020, but through the hard work and creativity of those working on and off campus, modern universities have demonstrated compellingly what we bring to the country and the economy – and how we can help build back better in 2021.

Modern universities have supported our hospitals, the social care system and our schools in this period. From student nurses moving to work in the NHS, to ensuring our frontline services have the equipment and support they needed when they needed it most, every university stood up and played its part in the fight against Covid.

Modern universities, so-called because they gained university status after 1992, make up more than half of UK higher education, teaching over a million students each year. We offer flexible provision, catering not just for those looking for a campus experience but also for those commuting to study, seeking to “learn while they earn” and for those employed as degree apprentices by our industry partners. We also reach out to students both young and mature from a very diverse and wide range of backgrounds including from disadvantaged communities in some of the poorest areas in the UK.

However, alongside the fight against Covid, HE continues to face challenges and criticism from commentators and occasionally from MPs. While I accept that universities must always strive to raise their game by improving every aspect of what we do, much of the media narrative is informed by either outdated thinking – or a simple lack of understanding of what higher education is about in the 21st century.

Take the quality of provision, for instance. Barely a week passes without talk from certain quarters of “low quality” provision when the simple fact is that the UK HE system has one of the most comprehensive and admired independent quality assurance systems in the world, one which many countries have sought to replicate.

It is our moral and professional responsibility to maintain high quality courses while weeding out poor practice. We know we need to continually raise our game on the employment outcomes our programmes generate for graduates. We are far from complacent on the task ahead on ensuring that our graduates gain highly skilled jobs in the challenging post-Covid economic landscape. A big shift is needed here – we are determined to deliver value for students and the taxpayer, who also foots some of the bill.

Another stick all-too-frequently used to bash universities is the idea of “low value” courses. In essence, these are courses that produce graduates who don’t earn high enough salaries to meet an arbitrary assessment of “value”. The blunt tool of using graduate salary to assess the idea of value reduces graduates – another word for which is “people”, with ambitions and hopes for themselves and their families – to a number, a vehicle for economic output, an infinitesimal addition in the nation’s GDP.

By this crude metric, arts subjects are deemed low value. Pre-pandemic, the creative industries were worth more than £100 billion per year to the economy and employing two million people. If only arts graduates were fish in UK waters, perhaps some would take a different view of their value. Unfortunately, this has been laid bare in the recent government letter to the OfS proposing funding cuts to the teaching grant for higher cost creative arts courses.

Even more galling, graduates in the very specialties we have come to rely on like never before since the start of this pandemic are also consigned in the “low value” category: nurses; paramedics and other allied health professionals; physiotherapists, teachers and many more. What’s more, the salaries that see them lumped into this unflattering category are set by government.

As we clapped those working on the frontline we demonstrated that value to society cannot simply be understood in terms of stellar earnings alone.

While universities can ensure that a student receives a high quality course and ensure support is available to bolster a student’s journey there are so many factors that make up what a good outcome is for a student and graduate – not least student choice, and with a higher education system of fees based on that very premise, we need to be very careful undercutting it and inadvertently subverting student choice just because some people don’t like what they choose.

As important as delivering quality courses, is where those courses are found. The Government is right to hone-in on the importance of levelling-up across the country, and on the importance of “place” in decision making.

Modern universities serve communities across the UK that are seen as having been “left-behind”, acting as anchors, providing links and co-ordination with local businesses, conducting “real-world” research projects to boost the regional economies, and in educating and training those who live locally. These are the “blue wall” seats and their hinterland. An old model of HE is passing away: a model that was based on inflexible courses, an expectation to live on campus, and programmes with little connection to the workplace.

Modern universities are emphatically not part of that old model. Offering something different, our members have distributed campuses enabling local learning throughout, for instance, the county of Cumbria, and in towns such as Stoke-on-Trent and Wolverhampton. At my university, Canterbury Christ Church, a teaching campus is based in the deprived area of Medway and a new medical school provides opportunities to those who may not be able to travel from, say, Ramsgate, to central London to train to become a doctor.

Another aspect of that new university offer is the integration of further education colleges within universities “families”. Two members of the MillionPlus group, Bolton University and London Southbank, now have FE colleges and academies as integral parts of their university groups, enabling learners to seamlessly progress from vocational or academic qualifications at the school/college to technical or wider HE study at the university. As such, plans to strengthen sub-degree education in the Government’s Skills for Jobs white paper are to be welcomed and worked on.

Modern universities support moves to boost opportunities for those seeking to study in FE, including for the new T Levels, which MillionPlus members have had involvement in crafting.

The narrative that pervades that HE and FE are in competition, or that more people should attend colleges and fewer universities or that funding should be re-directed from one to the other is unhelpful and simply misses the point. There is ample room in the local educational landscape for both, as we each possess distinctive but complementary educational missions.

Britain cannot claim to have truly recovered from the pandemic until every part of the country is fit and firing, with prosperity and opportunity shared more equitably across the country. For this very reason the UK government’s plan, again outlined in its recent Skills for Jobs white paper, to create a flexible entitlement to all levels of Post-18 learning is also to be welcomed.

MillionPlus has long called for greater flexibility in the access to student loans for high quality HE courses and for measures to be put in place to help people progress to, and from, their A level, T Level or BTEC attainment. Modern universities stand ready to drive that effort and are increasingly working with the Government and other parts of the education sector to do just that.

Our universities are not a luxury to afford, nor a punchbag for political rhetoric – we are part of the fabric of communities up and down the country and only by working together can we make the recovery truly a recovery for all.

If the Government won’t force the Tory shires to build more houses, perhaps it should bribe them instead

18 Dec

There was something soul-crushingly inevitable about announcement that the Government is going to abandon the algorithm at the heart of its planning reforms. But how big a setback is it?

To hear them tell it, not much. The core overhaul of the planning system – summarised here by London YIMBY – remains in place, including the part where areas are ‘zoned for growth’, a process that will, as Housing Today puts it, “grant automatic permission for development in certain areas”.

But ‘zoning for growth’ is only useful if you do it where the demand is. It is quite clearly a mechanism for brute-forcing a degree of much-needed development past the “more homes yes, but not here” brigade. Yet following a mutiny by Conservative backbenchers, Robert Jenrick has abandoned the algorithm the Government had been using to decide where such zones should go.

We don’t yet know what is going to replace it, but we do know that it will fall much less heavily on leafy, Tory-voting shire seats in the South East – a tactical victory for MPs such as Theresa May, whose Maidenhead constituency is now spared the shadow of a few hundred new homes.

The go-to solution for these MPs seems to be more development in urban areas. But this is clearly parcel-passing, and the problems are various. In London, where the demand really is, it will likely mean another unpopular application of ‘zoning for growth’ to push for densification in the (also Conservative-voting) suburbs. Otherwise it entails, as Bob Seely suggested in a piece for this site, shifting housebuilding targets northwards (where the demand isn’t) in the vague hope that economic regeneration will follow.

Unless you have ‘simultaneously build more houses and make no dent in the housing shortage’ on your housing policy bingo card – and given the state of British housing policy, you might – this likely isn’t a good idea.

In any event, given the backlash it will likely spark (Google ‘garden grabbing’ for a foretaste of it) it seems probable that the Government will eventually retreat from this as well, raising the spectre of a wholesale surrender of any effort to fix the Southern housing shortage by shifting the focus northwards under the rubric of ‘levelling up’.

If so, that would stand in a long and counter-productive Conservative tradition of trying to solve the problem without aggravating any of the vested interests in the Party’s electoral coalition, such as the repeated efforts of Chancellors from George Osborne onwards to solve a supply problem by pumping more demand into the market via schemes such as Help to Buy.

Yes, housing is a complicated problem and issues such as excessive credit – which we tackled in the ‘Homes’ section of the ConHome Manifesto – are part of it. But if your goal is to spread genuine property ownership, then jury-rigging mechanisms for getting cut-price assets into the hands of first-time buyers runs into the same problem that Margaret Thatcher’s attempt to create a ‘shareholding democracy’ did: how do you stop people selling them on at full price? Laws restricting the scale of mortgage lending to more old-fashioned levels may be part of the answer, but its absurd to pretend that they’re an alternative to building more houses.

Addressing the housing shortage – and once again for those at the back, the Southern housing shortage – has to be a strategic priority for the Conservatives. The current situation is delaying home-ownership, family formation, and otherwise reshaping society in ways antithetical to conservatism.

Not only is this squeezing the Party’s position in London, where the Tory vote in many seats has collapsed even since 2010, but it will spread the issue across the South East and the East of England as more London-based workers trade a longer commute for more affordable housing. Where Brighton and Canterbury have lead, many more true-blue seats could follow.

But what to do? Some of the Conservative-leaning think-tanks have their ideas. Alex Morton, the head of policy at the Centre for Policy Studies and a housing specialist, is working proposals to make an obligation to build part of planning permissions, to prevent developers banking the land value uplift without doing anything in return.

A paper for the Adam Smith Institute suggests the right ‘YIMBY’ policies could unlock up to five million homes in London alone, and they have elsewhere floated the idea of building ‘commuter villages’ near existing railway stations, effectively replicating the ‘Metroland’ project which saw swathes of north-west London effectively built by the Metropolitan Railway. But it isn’t obvious that London’s main commuter lines could take this extra pressure (at least until High Speed ‘it’s-capacity-really’ 2 is finished), and in any event a proposal that involves building on the green belt is politically-speaking just a thought experiment.

Policy Exchange also lean towards densification, drawing on the work of the late Sir Roger Scruton’s lamentably-named ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’.

However rather than trying to brute-force development through in the teeth of local opposition, which is what ‘zoning for growth’ aimed to do, this agenda aims to win public support both by making sure new developments are attractive (cue the lamentations of architects) and by making sure existing homeowners profit from new developments:

“They propose that we allow streets to hold a vote on whether to let homeowners redevelop their homes. If a two-thirds majority support it, homeowners would receive planning permission to add floors to their homes and to take up more of their plot area. The limits on what streets should be able to grant themselves would be those of traditional European cities: five-storey buildings in a terraced format. Many streets would probably choose to go up to these limits in order to maximise the increase in property values.”

Stuffing the mouths of vested interests with gold is a British policymaking tradition – it’s how Labour sold doctors on the NHS, after all – and is probably going to be essential if the Government intends to succumb to Tory MPs’ demands that planning be ‘locally-led’. The alternative is waiting until Labour get into office and unleash a housing programme drawn up with no regard whatsoever to the interests and preferences of Conservative voters and MPs. Which, at that point, some might feel they deserve.

Whatever path he chooses, the clock is now ticking for Boris Johnson. If he wants the new planning system to have had any impact on the situation in the country by the next election, he really needs to have it on the books by the end of 2021. Otherwise new applications and so on won’t have time to get through. But if he rushes into a second policy that gets thrown out by MPs, that’s very likely to mark the end of any serious efforts at planning reform in this Parliament.

As I noted recently with regards to green targets, this country has a very bad habit of endlessly putting off difficult infrastructure decisions. That the Government is still dithering over expanding Heathrow suggests this hasn’t changed. The Prime Minister’s tendency towards procrastination is well-known.

But solving the housing crisis is not just of national but of existential political importance to the Tories in a way our ports, airports, and road network frankly aren’t. Johnson needs to make a decision; it needs to be the right decision; and it needs to be soon. If he isn’t prepared to be Britain’s house-building Bonaparte, the Prime Minister needs to be clear what Plan B is.