Boris Johnson has been re-elected Mayor of London.
It's a remarkable achievement, given his Party's poll ratings and the fact that Labour out polled the Conservatives 41% to 32% in the GLA assembly vote. Boris is a winner, an electoral asset and vastly more popular than his Party; characteristics that are no longer associated with David Cameron.
But what does a Boris victory mean? For London, it means more of the same. Why would he jettison his winning formula? Despite the claims of some that Boris represents a more right-wing or authentic Conservatism, the reality is that he has governed as a moderate, pragmatic Tory. Surrounded by a competent team of experienced advisers such as Edward Lister, and Simon Milton before him, the Boris machine has been risk adverse and made few mistakes. There are rumours that he will now lose his respected PR adviser, Guto Harri, which will be a blow.
His victory will have a bigger impact on the the national political scene and the future direction of the Conservative Party. Many Tory MPs now expect Boris to return to Parliament at the 2015 election, despite Boris ruling this out. Boris is now a favourite to succeed Cameron.
The fact that people are even contemplating a local government figure as the next Prime Minister is the greatest endorsement of the mayoral model. It is therefore disappointing that the majority of England's provincial cities rejected the mayoral system on the same day.
Outside London, Labour made major gains at the expense of both the Tories and Lib Dems. This is part of the inevitable trend as voters use local elections to punish the Government of the day. Over the course of the Coalition, Labour will become the dominant party in local government. Independent and fringe parties also polled well.
The results will put more pressure on Cameron and Clegg. Over the last 24 hours, maverick Tory and Lib Dem politicians have hit the TV studios demanding their leaders are more robust in coalition negotiations. In fact, the Coalition parties didn't do that badly - Labour's poll rating on Thursday didn't even hit the figures achieved by Neil Kinnock, let alone Tony Blair.
Ed Miliband may have won the better newspaper headlines this weekend, but Labour are still a long way from a return to Government.
Showing posts with label Coalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coalition. Show all posts
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Having it two ways with Housing
The Government’s Housing Strategy announced yesterday is an example of Coalition policy making at its best and its worst. Its presentation was also a welcome improvement from a Government that has lost its way in media management in recent months - Cameron and Clegg speaking as one, supported by an articulate spokesman in Grant Shapps who spent the day touring the TV studios and rebutting his critics on the Blogosphere and Twitter.
The mortgage indemnity scheme is a nod to Tory champions of home ownership, while the bung to do up empty homes has long been a Lib Dem priority. Lib Dems can point to land auctions which have been developed by their CentreForum think tank; Tories to the FirstBuy scheme which helps First-Time Buyers onto the property ladder. The Tory policy to extend the Right to Buy has been tempered by a Lib Dem sensitivity to spend the receipts on building new social homes. In doing so, the Coalition has framed a radical, comprehensive and innovative set of policies to promote housing and housing growth.
The most welcome aspect of yesterday’s announcement is the realisation by both Tory and Lib Dem leaders of the central importance of the housing market to the wider economy. As with every recession since the 1930’s, it might have been a Housing Bust that got us into this mess, but it will be a Housing Boom that will get ‘Britain back to work’. When people feel good about the money in their home, they are generally quite happy to spend on holidays, new kitchens and other consumer durables.
The plan to underwrite mortgages comes straight out of Roosevelt’s New Deal. The beauty of that initiative was that it enabled the Federal Government to subsidise lower mortgages at no cost to the taxpayer (so long as things didn’t go wrong.) It helped trigger a housing boom that became American suburbia. But it was also the first in a series of events that would ultimately lead to the sub-prime catastrophe. The scheme proposed by the Coalition might be a short term mechanism to stimulate housing demand, but it is not a solution to the real problem which is a chronic under supply of new housing.
And it is here, on the supply side reforms, where the proposals look weak and confused trying to appease both its localism rhetoric and the economic reality. The Government say they want to promote “a wave of larger-scale projects…. where there is clear local support and private sector appetite". The problem is where are these sites? Where communities want more housing development, there are no investors; and where builders want to build, there is normally an army of NIMBY objectors. By trying to have it both ways, there is a danger that the Coalition will end up pleasing no one and delivering nothing. Ultimately, the Government might have to decide whether it is on the side of the Parish Councillor or the First Time Buyer.
The mortgage indemnity scheme is a nod to Tory champions of home ownership, while the bung to do up empty homes has long been a Lib Dem priority. Lib Dems can point to land auctions which have been developed by their CentreForum think tank; Tories to the FirstBuy scheme which helps First-Time Buyers onto the property ladder. The Tory policy to extend the Right to Buy has been tempered by a Lib Dem sensitivity to spend the receipts on building new social homes. In doing so, the Coalition has framed a radical, comprehensive and innovative set of policies to promote housing and housing growth.
The most welcome aspect of yesterday’s announcement is the realisation by both Tory and Lib Dem leaders of the central importance of the housing market to the wider economy. As with every recession since the 1930’s, it might have been a Housing Bust that got us into this mess, but it will be a Housing Boom that will get ‘Britain back to work’. When people feel good about the money in their home, they are generally quite happy to spend on holidays, new kitchens and other consumer durables.
The plan to underwrite mortgages comes straight out of Roosevelt’s New Deal. The beauty of that initiative was that it enabled the Federal Government to subsidise lower mortgages at no cost to the taxpayer (so long as things didn’t go wrong.) It helped trigger a housing boom that became American suburbia. But it was also the first in a series of events that would ultimately lead to the sub-prime catastrophe. The scheme proposed by the Coalition might be a short term mechanism to stimulate housing demand, but it is not a solution to the real problem which is a chronic under supply of new housing.
And it is here, on the supply side reforms, where the proposals look weak and confused trying to appease both its localism rhetoric and the economic reality. The Government say they want to promote “a wave of larger-scale projects…. where there is clear local support and private sector appetite". The problem is where are these sites? Where communities want more housing development, there are no investors; and where builders want to build, there is normally an army of NIMBY objectors. By trying to have it both ways, there is a danger that the Coalition will end up pleasing no one and delivering nothing. Ultimately, the Government might have to decide whether it is on the side of the Parish Councillor or the First Time Buyer.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Riots and regeneration
In July 1981, the streets of Toxteth erupted into violence and rioting. The immediate political reaction, as this week, was one of condemnation. But out of the riot came the regeneration policies that we today associate with Margaret Thatcher’s decade in office.
Michael Heseltine, the Secretary of State for the Environment, temporarily moved to Liverpool to see for himself what had gone wrong with that great City. He concluded that much of the problem lay with squabbling local authorities and a municipal disdain for private enterprise. What was needed was political leadership, better infrastructure and the freedom to allow the entrepreneurial spirit to flourish.
The record of the policy initiatives that emerged - Urban Development Corporations, City Challenge, and the International Garden Festivals (to clean up derelict brownfield areas) - is mixed, but there is no doubt that they brought some remarkable successes with the regeneration of Liverpool’s Albert Dock and London’s Docklands standing out as the most iconic. What’s more, the 1980’s marked a turning point for many of our provincial cities from post-industrial decline to one of urban renaissance - people wanted to live in our city centres again.
In the 1990’s and 2000s, the number of regeneration Quango’s proliferated, public funding was spread too wide and thinly and micro-management replaced big picture leadership. Public money went on masterplans and marketing, with the public sector setting out its visions and targets regardless of the commercial realities on the ground, and developers increasingly expected to pick up the tab for the costs of the infrastructure. The introduction of the Coalition Government’s localism agenda swept away much of this nonsense, but with it the original virtues of Heseltine’s targeted regeneration policies.
Of course there are differences between what happened in Toxteth and Brixton thirty years ago and the events of the past week. The images of hooded youths emerging from department stores with flat screen TVs and Nike trainers suggests that these disturbances were motivated by opportunism and personal gain. Yet, something has gone terribly wrong.
The Right blame family breakdown, a proliferation of drug use and lenient sentences; the Left poverty and inequality. Both point to educational underachievement, which has contributed to there being a million unemployed 16-25 year olds.
The events of the past week present the first big challenge for the Government’s policy of localism. Do our municipal leaders have the ingenuity to provide a coherent response or will we see a patchwork of ‘knee jerk’ reactions? Mr Cameron is already discovering that at times of crisis people look to their national leaders, not their local ones, and opinion polls show that the people haven’t been impressed with those leaders.
The question now is how the Coalition responds? What policies will emerge out of the ashes of last week’s riots? Regeneration must be an important part of the answer. The Coalition could do no worse than to reinvigorate Heseltine’s triple fix of Political leadership, Infrastructure and Entrepreneurial spirit – or what we might call the PIE strategy.
Michael Heseltine, the Secretary of State for the Environment, temporarily moved to Liverpool to see for himself what had gone wrong with that great City. He concluded that much of the problem lay with squabbling local authorities and a municipal disdain for private enterprise. What was needed was political leadership, better infrastructure and the freedom to allow the entrepreneurial spirit to flourish.
The record of the policy initiatives that emerged - Urban Development Corporations, City Challenge, and the International Garden Festivals (to clean up derelict brownfield areas) - is mixed, but there is no doubt that they brought some remarkable successes with the regeneration of Liverpool’s Albert Dock and London’s Docklands standing out as the most iconic. What’s more, the 1980’s marked a turning point for many of our provincial cities from post-industrial decline to one of urban renaissance - people wanted to live in our city centres again.
In the 1990’s and 2000s, the number of regeneration Quango’s proliferated, public funding was spread too wide and thinly and micro-management replaced big picture leadership. Public money went on masterplans and marketing, with the public sector setting out its visions and targets regardless of the commercial realities on the ground, and developers increasingly expected to pick up the tab for the costs of the infrastructure. The introduction of the Coalition Government’s localism agenda swept away much of this nonsense, but with it the original virtues of Heseltine’s targeted regeneration policies.
Of course there are differences between what happened in Toxteth and Brixton thirty years ago and the events of the past week. The images of hooded youths emerging from department stores with flat screen TVs and Nike trainers suggests that these disturbances were motivated by opportunism and personal gain. Yet, something has gone terribly wrong.
The Right blame family breakdown, a proliferation of drug use and lenient sentences; the Left poverty and inequality. Both point to educational underachievement, which has contributed to there being a million unemployed 16-25 year olds.
The events of the past week present the first big challenge for the Government’s policy of localism. Do our municipal leaders have the ingenuity to provide a coherent response or will we see a patchwork of ‘knee jerk’ reactions? Mr Cameron is already discovering that at times of crisis people look to their national leaders, not their local ones, and opinion polls show that the people haven’t been impressed with those leaders.
The question now is how the Coalition responds? What policies will emerge out of the ashes of last week’s riots? Regeneration must be an important part of the answer. The Coalition could do no worse than to reinvigorate Heseltine’s triple fix of Political leadership, Infrastructure and Entrepreneurial spirit – or what we might call the PIE strategy.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Full marks for the new national planning policy framework
Wyn Evans
The publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation has been enthusiastically welcomed by the property and development industry. And quite right too. The thousands of pages of turgid, bureaucratic and inconsistent policy guidance of the former regime have been cast aside and replaced with a concise 50 page framework with one overriding objective – growth.
While the Localism Bill gave Britain’s Nimby brigade the tools to frustrate and oppose development, the NPPF will be the developers trump card. Page after page reinforces the case for growth and development. Councils will now need to demonstrate that their local plans are in line with the NPPF. Those that don’t have a sound plan in place (and four fifths don’t at present) will be subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
It was always the Government’s intention to bring in a national planning framework that was supportive of growth to balance the anti-development tendencies of the localism bill. But the depth of the economic downturn and the Government’s priority to get the economy back on track has meant that the framework has a much stronger focus on economic development than would have been the case even twelve months ago.
The Ministers at CLG have played a blinder. By establishing the practitioner’s advisory group to publish an initial draft, they paved the way for a pro-growth agenda. And by waiting to publish the framework until the Localism Bill has passed through the scrutiny of the Lords should ensure that Ministers get their localism bill and NPPF in place for the target start date of April 2012. With the incentive provisions of the New Homes Bonus already established, the Government will feel that the core foundations of its planning reform agenda will have been delivered in less than two years of taking office – a pretty significant achievement.
Yet, there are a number of words of caution.
1. This is still a draft NPPF. The final version needs ratification and ministers will face months of lobbying from interest groups wanting to water it down.
2. Even if the NPPF is implemented as drafted, much will depend on how the Secretary of State administers the new system and interprets the provisions within the new framework. The term “sustainable development” in itself could be interpreted in many ways.
3. Much of the enthusiasm for the new policy is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Yet if this becomes seen as a loophole for developers to exploit the system, the Secretary of State will come under enormous pressure to use it sparingly.
Westminster now packs away for the summer break. CLG Ministers need to re-charge their batteries. When they come back, they will face pressure from councils, lobby groups, backbench MPs and the media to tone down the draft of this NPPF.
Wyn Evans is Founding Director of Forty Shillings.
The publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation has been enthusiastically welcomed by the property and development industry. And quite right too. The thousands of pages of turgid, bureaucratic and inconsistent policy guidance of the former regime have been cast aside and replaced with a concise 50 page framework with one overriding objective – growth.
While the Localism Bill gave Britain’s Nimby brigade the tools to frustrate and oppose development, the NPPF will be the developers trump card. Page after page reinforces the case for growth and development. Councils will now need to demonstrate that their local plans are in line with the NPPF. Those that don’t have a sound plan in place (and four fifths don’t at present) will be subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
It was always the Government’s intention to bring in a national planning framework that was supportive of growth to balance the anti-development tendencies of the localism bill. But the depth of the economic downturn and the Government’s priority to get the economy back on track has meant that the framework has a much stronger focus on economic development than would have been the case even twelve months ago.
The Ministers at CLG have played a blinder. By establishing the practitioner’s advisory group to publish an initial draft, they paved the way for a pro-growth agenda. And by waiting to publish the framework until the Localism Bill has passed through the scrutiny of the Lords should ensure that Ministers get their localism bill and NPPF in place for the target start date of April 2012. With the incentive provisions of the New Homes Bonus already established, the Government will feel that the core foundations of its planning reform agenda will have been delivered in less than two years of taking office – a pretty significant achievement.
Yet, there are a number of words of caution.
1. This is still a draft NPPF. The final version needs ratification and ministers will face months of lobbying from interest groups wanting to water it down.
2. Even if the NPPF is implemented as drafted, much will depend on how the Secretary of State administers the new system and interprets the provisions within the new framework. The term “sustainable development” in itself could be interpreted in many ways.
3. Much of the enthusiasm for the new policy is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Yet if this becomes seen as a loophole for developers to exploit the system, the Secretary of State will come under enormous pressure to use it sparingly.
Westminster now packs away for the summer break. CLG Ministers need to re-charge their batteries. When they come back, they will face pressure from councils, lobby groups, backbench MPs and the media to tone down the draft of this NPPF.
Wyn Evans is Founding Director of Forty Shillings.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Business rates, a brave decision minister
The announcement by the Coalition Government to re-localise business rates – well at least to allow councils to retain the business rates from new commercial development – will be welcomed by the local government fraternity.
It should also be welcomed by the development world. There will now be a financial incentive for councils to approve commercial development, in the same way as the New Homes Bonus incentivises new house building. And by preventing councils from increasing the business levy, there is a reassurance that there will be no return to the 1980s when socialist town halls piled up the tax burden onto the business owner.
But it is a bold and brave decision by the Coalition, particularly the Liberal Democrats. The major beneficiaries will be those areas that attract new businesses, predominantly the more affluent south.
The London Borough of Westminster collects 6% of the country’s entire business rates. Every time a new Gherkin or Shard goes up, they will be cashing in.
A new political narrative is emerging that we have a Tory government, propped up by the Liberal Democrats, which is favouring the south over the north. The Liberal Democrats paid a massive price for this at the recent local elections, suffering huge losses in the northern cities.
Despite Nick Clegg’s assertion that the localisation of the business rates will be fair, it is difficult to see how any system can be implemented which won’t favour those areas which are already attractive for business to locate.
What are your thoughts? Do you think re-localisation will give councils more incentive to support commercial development? Which areas will be the main beneficiaries?
It should also be welcomed by the development world. There will now be a financial incentive for councils to approve commercial development, in the same way as the New Homes Bonus incentivises new house building. And by preventing councils from increasing the business levy, there is a reassurance that there will be no return to the 1980s when socialist town halls piled up the tax burden onto the business owner.
But it is a bold and brave decision by the Coalition, particularly the Liberal Democrats. The major beneficiaries will be those areas that attract new businesses, predominantly the more affluent south.
The London Borough of Westminster collects 6% of the country’s entire business rates. Every time a new Gherkin or Shard goes up, they will be cashing in.
A new political narrative is emerging that we have a Tory government, propped up by the Liberal Democrats, which is favouring the south over the north. The Liberal Democrats paid a massive price for this at the recent local elections, suffering huge losses in the northern cities.
Despite Nick Clegg’s assertion that the localisation of the business rates will be fair, it is difficult to see how any system can be implemented which won’t favour those areas which are already attractive for business to locate.
What are your thoughts? Do you think re-localisation will give councils more incentive to support commercial development? Which areas will be the main beneficiaries?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)