« Cameron 'guru' is paid £23,000 every month | Main | Soft focus Cameron »


An excellent policy innitiative, perfectly timed too with just 39 days to go before the local elections. Well done !

At last, at last a kick up the Nimbys!
For the first time in years we have a senior Tory politician prepared to be bold and acknowledge that the only way we can solve the immense housing problem in this country is to tackle the supply side with courage. Of course we must involve local communities in shaping their landscape, and listen to their concerns, but their input must be genuine and not the often spurious arguments of the Nimbysts.
Certainly as Ferdinand Mount suggests there will be mistakes, a carbuncle or two but the goal must be to deliver as DC says, a society where owning your own home becomes a right ,not a privilege.
As I often repeat the 1947 Planning Act is the last vestige of post war socialist nationalisation to remain largely unreformed, and in truth the Tory party in Margaret Thatcher’s time enacted more negative planning legislation than any government since Atlee.( As a Thatcherite it pains me to say that!)
What is needed is a route and branch reform of planning policy which acknowledges first that there is a burgeoning crisis in housing in this country today and that the present policies are the most socially exclusive of any on the statute book.
We have a development industry in this country that is more than capable of rising to the challenges ahead, and instead of constantly berating it as a profit hungry predator we should be encouraging it to innovate in areas such as design and the built environment, sustainability of communities, green credentials, affordability and developing a range of tenures and initiatives to help first time buyers get on the ladder.
Taxation should be a prominent tool for all of this. Why should first time buyers have to pay stamp duty at all? Why not give parents a tax incentive to assist their offspring on to the property ladder? Give developers tax incentives to engage in diversity of tenures, good space standards, eco- efficient and energy efficient housing. Give them tax breaks, to provide infrastructure, rather than the current obsession with planning gain, which is just another form of nationalisation. Encourage the small developer as well as Mr Barret and Mr Wimpey .When I first started my career as a surveyor 80% of house building in England and Wales was undertaken by small companies building less than a dozen houses per annum.
There is a real opportunity here to tackle a long term potential crisis. Go to it DC, do not be deflected by Nimbyst comments such as that from Aghast above. The long term prizes is social justice.

We must be very careful not to fall back into the image the party had when it was last in power of being the builders friend.
Any new developments should only be allowed if they are wanted by local people and if they enhace the environment not destroy it.
I for one do not want to see England disappear under a layer of concrete!

I can agree with the criticisms of the present planning system. It is a Stalinist monolith which tends to result in explosions of sudden intensive and dense developments rather than a more natural even cycle of smaller scale development. It's like trying to prevent forest fires every summer and then facing a massive devastating conflagration, instead of allowing nature to take its regular course.

However, now that we have had the current planning system for sixty years, any dismantling or replacement has to be handled extremely carefully.

There is also the issue, as mentioned, of the effects of immigration and family break-ups, and not to mention the trend among state planners (including our old friend Ken Livingstone) to plan for forecast growth and demand based on questionable assumptions - including wished-for, rather and anticipated, economic growth and immigration.

It is the drivers of housing demand that must be examined, not just the state imposed barriers (planning and taxation) to the effective operation of the housing market.

Im afraid I dont like the sound of this very much. Here in Thanet we have the "Green Wedge" which is in planning terms part protected by our Local Plan. Communities feel they dont have a say, so its welcome that Cameron says they should be more involved but thats nothing different to what every political party in Britains going to be saying come election time. From what Im hearing, we are going to give communities more of a say, but were still going to prioritise greenbelt land for house building, which is exactly the problem that many communities (at least down in this part of the country) are complaining about. Camerons ideas here are conflicting and lean too far towards the builders friend argument that Jack Stone mentions.

A very bold tory policy. Of course, we like!

As regards Huntarian's comments above.

I'm at something of a loss to understand why owning your own hone is "a right".

Can anyone help me please ?

Another awful move from Cameron and Co. Take away all the spin and all he is actually saying is lets build on the green belt.

"Another awful move from Cameron and Co. Take away all the spin and all he is actually saying is lets build on the green belt."

Well worth repeating.

one of the main causes of the housing shortage has been the massive rise in divorce. one great way to deal with the problem is to relook at the 1960's and subsequent divorce laws and tighten them. then not only would the housing shortage be less of a problem, but poverty and anti-social behaviour would be reduced as well because more families would stay together.

Don't be so ridiculous Spagbob.

That would be far too judgemental, family friendly and sensible. There's also no 'soundbite' advantage in doing so either.

We've still got untold more acres left to concrete over before we address the real / underlying issues.

Yes Spagbob, anybody who divorces should be jailed.

I think it's stretching the story to go from what Cameron actually wrote to the froth here. He hasn’t advocated anything that would result in building on greenfield sites. If he does he’ll clearly loose the support of his own.

Huntarian - agree.

Interesting that some many posters have immediately taken the NIMBY/he's going to build on Green Belt position. He talks of eco-friendly attractive homes, the type people want to live in and bring up their families, have gardens etc. while Prescott plans high density family unfiendly, urban estates. We must find a way of doing this.

Aghast - the basic needs of man are shelter & food. For these you can either be dependent on the state or provide them independently. As a conservative I think that giving everyone the opportunity to own their own home is right.

If the current planning regulations are enforcing state led rationing we should see how that can be eased. But we should do it in a way that allows increased local control, but balances pure Nimbyism with presumptions for development provided certain conditions are met.

It is time to build on the green belt. It should be abolished to enable property owners to realise the true market value of their assets and create a truly free market in housing.

Get the policy detail right here and this has the potential to be a massive vote winner and signal that we are truly addressing the issues of this decade.

Housing obeys the laws of supply and demand and yes we need to address some of the demand side issues as well (for example, tackling the scandal of the work shy masquerading as incapacitated for all forms of work would help to reduce inward economic migration) but most important we need to tackle the supply of new housing.

Editor, yes, divorce contributes to rising housing demand, but don't you think that the high cost of housing in this country - which frequently forces both partners in a household to work long hours simply to service a mortgage - actually contributes to marriage breakdown in the first place? It certainly does not help in the raising of well-adjusted children.

With less than 8% of our land mass developed how can anyone claim that we are short of green space?


Giving 'people' an opportunity to own their own homes is not the same as people having "a right" to do so.

Quite the reverse.

The former is (as I always understood it) a Conservative policy, the latter Socialist.

Adrian,I respectfully disagree.

I wasn't looking at this in crude 'vote' terms, but I'm genuinely interested to learn who it is you believe will vote for us for adopting such a policy, set against our existing voters who (in the main) will be utterly appalled.

People say that this is attacking a socialist planning system and yet apparently Cameron thinks these homes are going to be eco-friendly and beautiful. The first may be attainable through government interference, the second is clearly the hubris of those who think that Whitehall knows best. And when he talks about incentives for local councils, I presume he means overriding local democracy by bribing those who are coerced by central government diktats - diktats which, day by day, look like exploding under any Cameron government.

As with so many social problems the demand for housing is driven by family breakdown and immigration. I shan't be holding my breath in expectation of any announcements from Cameron on these issues.

I also question the extent to which there really is a housing problem. As far as I am aware home ownership is at its highest ever level, and comparatively high as well. There never was a time when single people in their 20s expected to own their own home.

If the Tories want to come up with something useful they could abolish the market distorting subsidies that the government gives to so called 'key workers.'

"I believe everyone SHOULD have the right to own their home" is conservative, its about opportunity - expansion to " I believe everyone should have the right to have opportunity to own their own home" doesn't change the meaning.

Socialism is about not having the rights of individual ownership.

We believe that the best exercise of the basic right to shelter is through individuals having their own homes - while recognising that some may be unable to exercise their rights to shelter without the support and assistance of others.

Denying the individual the exercise of this option through state management of planning is necessary in some cases but should be circumscribed to ensure it does not entirely remove the ability of people to own their homes.

I wasn't looking at this in crude 'vote' terms, but I'm genuinely interested to learn who it is you believe will vote for us for adopting such a policy, set against our existing voters who (in the main) will be utterly appalled.

I live in the north-west of England, yet the children of my fifty-something voters cannot get on the housing ladder in the "nice" area I represent. It is a major concern to these voters of mine.

There never was a time when single people in their 20s expected to own their own home.

It was certainly the expectation in the 1980's when I bought my first house at the age of 22. Best investment I ever made.

I thought we as a party supported aspiration, rather than pulling the ladder up after ourselves in socialist fashion?

Our goal is a Britain in which there are more beautiful, affordable, eco-friendly homes.

Whose goal is a Britian in which there are more unaffordable, environmentally unfriendly eyesores?

If true - this policy U-turn means that Cameron has totally sold out to short term 'pile it high-sell it cheap' politics. If it sounds attractive to the casual observer lets go for it and hang the consequences.

The demand for housing is driven by population growth and that is now driven by immigration - so it artificially induced.

So what is viable population for the UK (particularly the south east of England) is it the 60m of today - is it the 67m predicted by 2031 or the 71m forecast for 2074. Is it 100m ? 200m ? - no politician will face up to population pressures because the only way to get elected is to tell voters they 'can have their cake and eat it' and all solutions are painless. That is not leadership it's what even Tony Blair called 'followship'

Population (particularly in southern England) is growing faster than at any time since the baby-boom years and it is not natural growth , it is government policy - and now obviously, conservative policy.

Gridlocked traffic, polluted air, increasing flood risk, energy crisis, loss of countryside, waste disposal problems,social cohesion under threat. The Law of Diminishing Returns is already affecting Quality of Life issues.

Building new houses on a massive scale without reference to viable population levels is madness.

If the Tories want to come up with something useful they could abolish the market distorting subsidies that the government gives to so called 'key workers.'

And thus ensure that police men and nurses, for example, would never be able to afford housing in many metropolitan areas. It's simply a way of addressing the market distorting measure that are national pay deals for the public sector.


I live in the South East of England.

The voters I represent are sick to death of the ODPM's PPG/S policies as they are of Mayor Livingstone 'London Plan' both of which are ruining our neighbourhoods with ill conceived and unsustainable high density build.

This Policy is going to bomb, big style.

Its not only the issue of the Planning Regulations its also the whole issue of local authorities, local taxation & affect of central government re-distribution.
In a country where local taxes are locally raised the town council wants to attract industry, jobs and new housing because that builds and widens its tax base. With central government taking business rates and re-distributing them, with majority of local funding coming from central government grants then councils respond to the Nimby tendency or they impose additional development costs. almost blackmail, on developers to get immediate planning gain. They can only do this because of their ability to control development without suffering ill effects if it goes elsewhere, because they'll get government grants anyway.

Our biggest challenge is to build accountable local government, largely autonomous in its funding, which has clearly defined areas of competence and devolving to those much of decision making.

James Hellyer - its Prescott's policy to build eyesores; high density, envirionmentally unsound (more homes in areas with water shortages).

When I read some of the mis-readings of Cameron's article in posts above... he doesn't support high density builds (those aren't beautiful homes). I imagine the policy group or strategy group looking at this area has been looking at the ongoing discussion about the type of homes we actually want as against those planners and the ODPM think we should have.

The 1947 act was brought in by a government that knew best how to decide what we needed not what we wanted). In the 30's huge developments delivered detached homes with gardens - because builders build what sells not what planners think is best.

If we can create a policy that better enables the construction industry to build what we want then starter homes, family homes, flats etc will become avilable in places people want to live. The point is about less central planning, perhaps eco-friendly building regulations.

This may mean existing limits on developments on edges of towns & villages need to be removed, it could mean I lose the great views I enjoy but its sensible both to improve the quality of life and reduce the huge costs of planning controls (on home buyers, developers & council tax payers - £1 in £8 of my district tax goes to pay for the planning dept)

I will wait for the speech tomorrow before making up my mind but it does not look good at all.If we really believe in localism we should be giving far more power to local planning departments not less.
Looking at some of the estates that disfigure England one can see that property developers are the last people who should be trusted to build sensitively.Given a freer rein they will do much to destroy the enviroment we are supposed to conserve.
You're not a property developer are you Huntarian?


I agree about ODPMs predict and provide policies. This is part of the current socialistic planning system. I can't speak for your area I don't know it, but I'd hazard a guess that local councillors could provide better for the housing needs of their local population than John P and Ken L. I ask the same for my area - local control. If we'd have had that our local plan would have allowed more house building.

I would free the housing market further, but on this issue of local control we should be able to agree - and to agree with David Cameron as well.


Comparing the products of centrally directed estates to what a more limited regime would deliver is like comparing the old East German automotive industry to West German.

Property developers are constricted by planners to a huge extent. Yes they want to make as much profit but restictions mean what you get is the result of a long negotiation between builders and planners, with ODPM guidelines added in to mix.

We need to give more power to local councils but remove power from planners - not because they are power hungry bureaucrats but actually that the current overload of regulations mean they have less flexibility and freedom than a lighter regime would impose. That drives down the quality of build.

Regulations on density of homes, on proportions of "affordable" to what "non afordable?", on provision for parking, on what land is available etc.

We believe that quality is improved by less regulation and state control in most areas of life, why not in housing?

As has been pointed out above, the vast majority of our housing demand is being fuelled by massive immigration. If we reduced that, we would solve the housing shortage. The present government is building high density in order to achieve most on brownfield sites. If Cameron were to advocate relaxing planning controls and allowing more building on the green belt he would alienate a lot of his core support. I would not support such a policy, nor would most of the people who vote for me as a district councillor. If he were to advocate building larger properties with bigger gardens it would take up even more of our countryside.

He must tackle immigration. Limiting immigration was our most popular policy, To reverse it would be madness. We would be playing right into the hands of UKIP.

And I believe local people should be able to decide whether they want devolopment or not.My experience tells me that developers develop for maximum profit (not there is anything wrong with that) but considerations about the enviroment are at the absolute bottom of their priorities.Whilst less regulation is desirable in theory I believe we will end up with even worse developments than we did in the T.Dan Smith era without it.We are supposed to be the CONSERVative Party and we are also supposed to be the party that 'stands up to big business'.That is why I think I will be so diappointed with the current proposals.

I don't disagree about local people deciding malcolm but T Dan Smith etc were the result of regulation not a cause of it.

Some areas that are included within the Green Belt are pretty tatty, and there'd be no reason not to build on them. But overall, I think the Green Belt round London is a good thing. It does ensure that the Home Counties remain attractive.

And if we were to have new major development on the Green Belt, it's unlikely it would look like Letchworth or Welwyn Garden City. It just wouldn't be profitable for developers to construct new towns like that. Pre WWII, developers built about 4 houses per acre, on average; now it's 16 per acre, on average.

"And I believe local people should be able to decide whether they want devolopment or not."

Agree 100%. I don't like this attack on NIMBYism. It is perfectly normal to resent the building of more houses on the nice land surrounding yours, especially if it lowers your house value.

That said, the big ugly prairie field farms (powered by government subsidy) could be suitable candidates for development, as Mount points out in his book.

"An excellent policy innitiative, perfectly timed too with just 39 days to go before the local elections. Well done !"

Which will isolate Tory voters in SE England.

Thats just the sort of comment I would expect from Polly Toynbee, sounds very high minded until you actually question the meaning of each point.

1) A stake in what? The land I don't think so. A sense of belonging I should think that is unlikely too, sense nos. 2 and 3.

2)Responsibility - clearly Miss Toynbee is endowing everybody with her own attitude to 'owning' which comes from knowing where your next £ is coming from and some experience of how to cope with owning and running your habitation! People who are dispossessed often do not have that experience, and when they get given a mortgage perhaps even 100% mortgage, have no idea of how big a sum it means finding each month to pay back. You don't just get responsibility like a commodity when you get something, think of all the babies that are unplanned, they more often provoke an extremely bad headache and a bad temper then a sense of responsibility!

3)A share in wealth - I would love to hear Miss Toynbee explain this concept of hers! How does a dispossessed person achieve a share of wealth by getting a house or flat on a mortgage or by any other means come to that. You only achieve the so-called wealth when you sell the property and before her friend Mr. Brown gets his hands on a substantial part of the sale price!!

I get heartily fed-up with people of Miss Toynbee's persuasion making these fancy sounding statements, without really working them through. I knew someone until very recently who used to have to have to be involved, through his work, with people whose houses were being repossessed, and he would listen to their sad stories, mostly seeming to stem from a mortgage too easily obtained but too difficult to pay back!

I like the sound of this but want to see the detail. Conservatives must be about opportunity and inclusion - when we are we are unbeatable. Take rural areas of Wales where I live. Young people are being driven out of the community and can't get on the housing ladder. If we don't care about this as a party then why should they vote for us and why should we survive as a party?! At the moment Prescott wants to build vast estates in the south mainly to gerrymander our seats but the real issue is that the planning laws are nonsense. Here we just can't build on any land outside of tight boundaries round villages and towns. When lands are released they are big estates usually occupied by people from outside of the area. I want to see a rejuvenation of rural areas so that small developments are possible next to the village but more importantly I would rather see dispersed developemnt of individual houses in fields across rural areas. In parts of France there are lost of houses spread out across the countryside each with its own traditional plot around it. In that way the countryside is still attractive and essentially rural but lots more houses are hidden away into the land. Also planning here blocks people building log homes in the countryside to live in but these are ideal, they are environmentally friendly and cheap so people can get onto the property ladder. I would prefer to see less built up estates and more houses distributed around the land,


At last, at last a kick up the Nimbys!
For the first time in years we have a senior Tory politician prepared to be bold and acknowledge that the only way we can solve the immense housing problem in this country is to tackle the supply side with courage. Of course we must involve local communities in shaping their landscape, and listen to their concerns, but their input must be genuine and not the often spurious arguments of the Nimbysts.

I'm choking as I type, but I have to agree with Cameron on this one. Let supply rise to meet demand. Has to be the right type of supply though, or else you do little to help those at the bottom of the ladder.

I'm sure there will be plenty more opportunities for me to resume disagreement with the Tories soon ;)

I think I've missed something in the last couple of years, the greenbelts been protected? Whose? We've had acres of greenbelt built on in my town and in our neighbouring town, everything from retirement flats to executive homes built on school sports fields that were sold a couple of years ago.

You want to be pleased they're talking about building homes for your children instead of putting gas plants, incinerators, or a recycling multi-skip waste dump on the land!

Whose goal is a Britian in which there are more unaffordable, environmentally unfriendly eyesores?

James I was just going to write 'John Prescott' but Ted beat me to it.

I think we have a great opportunity to take control of housing policy away from centralised 'plan and build' and genuinely devolve power down to local communities. If a community doesn't want more houses then their economic growth will stall and eventually go into decline.

Prescott wants to destroy beautiful homes that could be eco-friendly and affordable; about 400,000 of them in the North of Enlgand - Cameron's plan should address this directly as opposition to Prescott is one sort of NIMBYism we should all encourage..

One of my colleages mentioned that his home, of many years, is one of these Kingbongo mentioned above scheduled for demolition (it's not run down, just an old two bed mill cottage/structurally sound and in good repair).

They have offered him £70,000 for it - the cheapest replacement home is £120,000, he can't take on a new mortgage for £50,000 at his age, he's distraught.

I think you'd have to be bananas to object to that."

Hear, hear. A laudable and thoughtful sentiment, and a bold policy move.

Ed: Much housing demand is powered by family breakdown and increased immigration.

Or presumably the fact that I own and live alone in my own home, being neither a new immigrant nor a product of family breakdown?

Cameron's view seems broadly correct. We now have the smallest homes, and the most expensive ones in Europe. We have to live in less space than our parents did. I undertstand even Netherlands have larger homes. I have never understood why France still seems so beautiful, even though homes seem dotted all about the countryside. Maybe we have lost the plot - we all lived in the country before the industrial revolution, and evidence is everywhere. In now well off nimby areas round here are Wesleyian Chapels everywhere. Reduce planning, but perhaps insist on local materials to retain character.

Policy Exchange has published extensively on housing and planning and I hope our work has also had an influence. All the books are on our website www.policyexchange.org.uk.

There are a lot of myths about the housing market but the fact is that we live in the oldest, smallest and most expensive homes in the developed world. We have a highly urbanised population (90% of people live in towns and cities) yet use only 10% of our land for housing, i.e. we have plenty of land that could be developed without "concreting over the countryside". In the Netherlands and Germany - two countries with similar population densities - they build many more homes and use around 15% of their land for settlement. As a result their housing is light years ahead in quality, space and price.

And don't believe the doom-mongers who would pin this all on immigration or divorce. These have an influence, but the biggest factors are that people are living longer and that a birth spurt around 20 years ago is leading to lots of young adults setting up their own households - surely longer lives and health birth rates should be good things?

We simply need more homes, and many of them must be built on green land. How do you think our existing homes got there in the first place?! Cameron's policy announcement is wonderful news because, for the first time in 25 years, it clearly puts the Conservative Party on the side of aspiration, rather than entrenching the interests of the already well off.

Cameron is right to attack NIMBYism - there is nothing worse than capitalism for the poor but socialism for the rich, and anyone who thinks that the government interfering through the planning system in the way that it does has anything to do with the free market must be insane... local control would be a lot better than government diktat, and within this framework we should help people to aspire to their own home not tell them they can't have one (now we've all got one!)

That said, there are a lot of other things he needs to say too - such as the reason that there are lots of houses in the north being pulled down as 'unliveable' is that there are crime infested hell holes due to years of liberal education and policing policies, that social housing is an illusion (which creates dependency and forces people to live where the government want), that immigration is adding to housing pressure...

I do wish the liberal conservative Cameron would be more balanced and conservative rather than liberal.

Still, overall I agree with him.

I'm just wondering how many people who are against this already own their own homes?
As a young person who currently doesn't I'd quite welcome something to make it more achieveable for me
I'm willing to bet all the complaints come from people who are already comfortably on the property ladder!

I'm not quite yet a property owner, Midnight Blue, but I do worry about losing yet more of the precious English countryside. Relaxation of planning will reduce the incentives to redevelop our cities (which on many levels is the environmentally sensitive thing to do) and concentrating on the supply of housing avoids the need to control demand pressures.

I'm certainly not unconcerned about the loss of "green space" Ed, and I really should have said something about that in my original post so as not to misrepresent my opinion :) It does seem however that in many areas there is a complete refusal to even contemplate even one new building, and whilst I agree that many inner city areas are ideal for redevelopment it wouldnt help young people who don't currently live in a city.

This thread is full of the usual ill-informed anti-immigration nonsense I now know to expect from many posters to this blog.

Simple statistical misunderstanding, non-sensical data from the avowedly anti-immigration Migration Watch supports a natural inclination by certain posters to blame immigrants for inherent economic and social problems.

Housing problems are not caused by "too many immigrants". Net positive immigration does have a small role to play in housing requirements, but the main problems are the north-south economic divide, and the desire of people to have their own space.

There has been too much building in already built-up areas. London and other cities need all the green space they can get.

I support the policy. Magaret Thatcher's example of the Docklands, where planning regulations were effectively abolished is a good example of the kind of thing we can expect under this new policy.

True Blue - From that well known pair of right wing organisations, the ONS and the BBC:

"Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 223,000 more people came into the UK than left in 2004, the highest figure recorded."

"Separate figures predict the population may increase by up to 7.2m in 25 years, more than half the rise from migration."

So I do think that an extra 3.6 million people might have some bearing on the housing pressures in the UK... No one said it was the only cause, but one of the main causes, yes.

Further, regarding the two causes you identify, (mass) immigration it is a lot easier to fix than the north south divide, and you certainly can't stop people wanting to have their own space...

"Separate figures predict the population may increase by up to 7.2m in 25 years, more than half the rise from migration. "


Figures from

If this means more development in the South East or South West I am 100% opposed to this, there is not a single argument that can persuade me. Our land is preciuos and should not be destroyed, it is completely unsustainable the Thames Valley already has less rainfall per person than Israel and planting thousands of new homes in the middle of it won't help. Resources should be aimed at making enticing people to move north where people are entire towns are without people and encourage more high density development within towns. The only good thing from this is that houses should be made beautiful rather than the monotone developments currently being built.

Selsdon: It is time to build on the green belt. It should be abolished to enable property owners to realise the true market value of their assets and create a truly free market in housing.

It's time that Selsdon Man was sold into slavery. Then we'd find out what his true market value was.

What's that? Market value isn't everything? Oh.

True Blue, you need to check out the facts. Immigration is running at a net gain of 250,000 a year and that's not including the workers coming here from Eastern Europe, over 300,000. So if that isn't causing any significant housing problems, I don't know what is!

Wake up! Until we recognise that we are one of the most crowded places in Europe, we won't begin to tackle the problem, which is to try to reduce the population.

By all means look at immigration but the issues are still the same. Many people cannot get on the property ladder, especially the young. Why the hell should they vote Conservative if we don't give a toss about them and their future? Many parts of the UK, especially the North are big rural areas but we cannot build on them at all. What I would like to see is less big dense estates and more dispersed housing spread across parts of the countryside. this would be a win-win. farmers who are struggling would get some income, people would get some houses, houses would be less dense and more rural in nature which woul make for calmer and better quality of life and culture for many. DC take notice and go for it!!


Daily Mail calls Camerons new policy 'beyond parody' today.Whatever one thinks of the Mail it has generally been supportive of Cameron to date.He would be foolish to alienate it.

Malcolm: I haven't seen the Daily Mail but surely this is an issue where DC should be leading public opinion not following it. We ought to be all in favour of local people being more directly involved in shaping their local communities. That would mean an end to the current regional planning diktats which are so unpopular round here.

Assuming this is about massive new house building and not lighter touch regulation, then just which votes would this gain us?

It would lose votes in the south and not attract votes in the north.


In most of the battle ground seats of the South East, the fight is with the LDs who will locally oppose house building. If we associate ourselves with massive house building we will be supplying bullets to the Lib Dems. Have we learnt nothing from 3 jobs Bob supplying bullets to LDs?

The voters with housing problems make up under 10% of the voting population in the South. Being younger they are also less likely to actually vote! The voters with houses that will be threatened by over supply and new estates down the road represent at least 80% of the voters. Gain 1, lose 8, is a very dumb piece of thought.

Regenerate the north through shifting Govt departments to the north, is a much smarter approach to housing supply.

I thought you Thatcherites would all be behind sorting out the supply side problems by removing regulation?

This "immigration problem" that the Daily Mail likes to talk about. These immigrants are by and large not spongers who have come to exploit our benefit system. They are our cleaners and postmen, cooks and plumbers, builders and nurses. They are a vital part of our economy, they contribute to economic growth, and they need affordable homes.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker