News Reader.info

“More will mean worse,” wrote Kingsley Amis in _Encounter_ magazine in 1960. He was writing in reference to the expansion of higher education. But that emphatic message of pessimism, of

defeatism, could have been applied to housing. In some ways when we look at what has happened over the following 60 years, both to our universities and to property development, it is hard to

argue. I am instinctively repelled by such negativism. But most people instinctively nod along. In particular, Conservatives are seldom more content than when defiantly pronouncing such

messages of gloom. Thus we have Conservative MPs who resist the government’s latest efforts to boost the supply of new homes. The idea that more housing is needed is acknowledged by these

MPs in principle but resisted in practice. Assurances that new safeguards will mean that the new homes will be better not worse — beautiful buildings of good quality, well-located — are met

with cynical dismissals. Instead, we read that, “Tory MPs say the plans could destroy the character of their suburban constituencies by leading to the construction of large tower blocks to

fulfil the targets.” Matters are not helped by the discovery that a “mutant algorithm” is to blame for ambitious housing targets. It was only a couple of months ago that we had one of those

causing havoc with A-Level grades. Many pupils felt the grades they were given — without having actually taken an exam — were unfair. This prompted a U-turn and teacher grade predictions

were used instead. It was a triumph for man over machine. But I’m not sure we should be too rude about the computers ‚ if they give us the wrong answers, we probably put in the wrong

questions. This time the complaint concerns figures produced by Lichfields, a planning consultancy, on the number of new homes needed in each part of the country, figures the government

broadly accepts. The problem is not so much with the total of 337,000 a year, but with the distribution. The Lichfields computer has whirred away and decided most of them should go where the

demand is greatest. This tends to mean affluent areas. That means, despite the demographic changes on voting patterns seen in last year’s General Election, mostly Tory constituencies. The

_Times_ reports: “Tory constituencies would have housing targets raised by 52 per cent, from 81,200 to 123,400. On average, each Tory-run local authority would have an increase of about 370

homes, compared with 250 for Labour-held areas. A total of 25 Labour-held council areas would have their housing requirements cut, with Manchester falling by nearly 1,000, Leicester by 600,

Birmingham and Bradford by 500 each, and Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield by 400 each.” London provides a significant balance to the narrative, being mostly affluent and mostly Labour voting.

The target for London would treble to 93,532 a year. But that doesn’t seem to have helped. The Prime Minister has been warned that, as a London MP, he could be among those facing a local

backlash.