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 Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Thursday, August 25, 2011
In defence of the National Planning Policy Framework
Middle England is in revolt and the issue that is attracting their fury is planning. Or more precisely, the Government’s proposed new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The Editor of Country Life, Clive Aslet, claims that “the object (of the NPPF) is to let development rip through those parts of Britain that aren’t formally protected as National Parks or part of the Green Belt. This is most of what us still regard as our green and pleasant land – ‘all fields, high hedges, and deep-rutted lanes’, as George Eliot put it.”
Shaun Spiers from CPRE adds, that “the presumption in favour of development is clearly about development, not sustainability. The message for local authorities is ‘build, build, build.’”
Government Ministers appear to be at war with the countryside’s leading advocates. The complaints from groups such as the National Trust and CPRE, hitherto seen as part of the true blue brigade, are dismissed by Ministers as “a carefully choreographed smear campaign by Left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups."
The Countryside Alliance’s Dylan Sharpe, says “It's time to call an armistice and for all parties to get back round the table.”
It’s funny, they weren’t calling for that when the Government ripped up the regional strategies and introduced localism. Some 220,000 homes that were planned under the previous Government, have now been scrapped as a consequence of the abolition of the regional plans.
The reality is that no local authority that puts in place a local plan has anything to fear by the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. What the Government are trying to do is prevent a repeat of the 2004 Planning Act. Between 2004 and 2010, despite requirements to do so, just 13% of councils put in place a local plan. If you believe in localism and a plan led system, it requires a local authority to have a plan. You can’t allow them to drag their heels in the hope that difficult decisions will go away.
Aslet is wrong when he says that “a carefully evolved system of checks and balances has been junked in favour of a presumption that big development will get its way.” The NPPF is an attempt to ensure that a system of checks and balances remains in place under localism, and that councils face up to their new responsibilities.
In opposition, the Conservatives always said they wanted more development and to build more homes. They argued that the problem with the top-down regional strategies was that it built the wrong homes in the wrong places, where they were not wanted. Their solution was localism.
There are legitimate debates to be had about whether we concrete over greenfields or whether we cram more people into our built up areas; whether we create sustainable new settlements or whether we disperse development over wider areas. Under localism, it will be for local communities and their community leaders to grapple with these issues and policy dilemmas.
This could result in a loss of greenfields in certain areas, but that is only because those communities have decided that is a more desirable outcome than cramming people into high rise, small boxes in our town centres.
The rural countryside lobby is quite happy to take the bits of localism that empowers people to say no, but they don’t want councils to face up to the responsibility that goes along with having these new localist powers. The NPPF does just that.
Ministers, stick to your guns.
The Editor of Country Life, Clive Aslet, claims that “the object (of the NPPF) is to let development rip through those parts of Britain that aren’t formally protected as National Parks or part of the Green Belt. This is most of what us still regard as our green and pleasant land – ‘all fields, high hedges, and deep-rutted lanes’, as George Eliot put it.”
Shaun Spiers from CPRE adds, that “the presumption in favour of development is clearly about development, not sustainability. The message for local authorities is ‘build, build, build.’”
Government Ministers appear to be at war with the countryside’s leading advocates. The complaints from groups such as the National Trust and CPRE, hitherto seen as part of the true blue brigade, are dismissed by Ministers as “a carefully choreographed smear campaign by Left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups."
The Countryside Alliance’s Dylan Sharpe, says “It's time to call an armistice and for all parties to get back round the table.”
It’s funny, they weren’t calling for that when the Government ripped up the regional strategies and introduced localism. Some 220,000 homes that were planned under the previous Government, have now been scrapped as a consequence of the abolition of the regional plans.
The reality is that no local authority that puts in place a local plan has anything to fear by the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. What the Government are trying to do is prevent a repeat of the 2004 Planning Act. Between 2004 and 2010, despite requirements to do so, just 13% of councils put in place a local plan. If you believe in localism and a plan led system, it requires a local authority to have a plan. You can’t allow them to drag their heels in the hope that difficult decisions will go away.
Aslet is wrong when he says that “a carefully evolved system of checks and balances has been junked in favour of a presumption that big development will get its way.” The NPPF is an attempt to ensure that a system of checks and balances remains in place under localism, and that councils face up to their new responsibilities.
In opposition, the Conservatives always said they wanted more development and to build more homes. They argued that the problem with the top-down regional strategies was that it built the wrong homes in the wrong places, where they were not wanted. Their solution was localism.
There are legitimate debates to be had about whether we concrete over greenfields or whether we cram more people into our built up areas; whether we create sustainable new settlements or whether we disperse development over wider areas. Under localism, it will be for local communities and their community leaders to grapple with these issues and policy dilemmas.
This could result in a loss of greenfields in certain areas, but that is only because those communities have decided that is a more desirable outcome than cramming people into high rise, small boxes in our town centres.
The rural countryside lobby is quite happy to take the bits of localism that empowers people to say no, but they don’t want councils to face up to the responsibility that goes along with having these new localist powers. The NPPF does just that.
Ministers, stick to your guns.
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)