Now that the election is over, and we have successfully made inroads into the Conservative Blue Wall, it’s time to reflect and learn from our past. Moving forward, it’s crucial that we balance our national progressive platform with the needs of our Blue Wall constituents. We must navigate this balance with confidence, avoiding the pitfalls of timidity that have hindered us in the past. In a landscape marked by fragmented politics and widespread distrust, we can’t afford to be complacent.
Our victories in this election were not isolated as an endorsement alone but were also influenced by a split on the right. It poses a threat for us. People have an appetite to “shake-up” the system feeling that, for years, Governments have neglected issues like housing, development and infrastructure. We need to be mindful of the rising threat of far-right politics, which often scapegoats marginal groups instead of addressing the real issues. The performances of parties like Reform and the lukewarm vote share for Labour highlight the concerns of many communities. These communities feel “threatened,” suffer from managed decline, and lack regeneration. It’s our duty to ensure that the gains we’ve made in the Blue Wall, while substantiated, also remains meaningful and sometimes brave.
Reflecting on the 2005 UK election, it is here we can learn valuable lessons. Our strategy back then led to a disjointed campaign that hurt us later. To avoid repeating this mistake, we must ensure our bold visions — such as planning reform and housing — are clear and remains consistent. Nationally, our manifesto in 2005 was a progressive beacon, much like in this election, which stood in contrast to Labour’s centrist orthodoxy and the Conservatives’ right-wing pitch. However, locally, we often took a different tone, particularly in Tory heartlands on issues like planning reform, infrastructure development and housing. We need to trend very carefully how we balance this. Yes, as someone who lives in a declining town where you can see fields of empty properties and boarded-up shops, I do concur to the sentiment that I don’t want development spilled out into the rural areas as the only focus. That, for many people in impoverished Northern towns, will just yet be another transfer of wealth down to the South. However, being realistic here, it would be naïve to think that some areas more handsome in land needs to also take its fair share. We do need for our new Blue Wall LibDem representatives to also help share this national burden.
From our past heights, we’re guilty of displaying Nimbyism when pressured and having also seen by-election leaflets also displaying strokes of Nimbyism – I still remain hopeful this can continue in our mission in aiding development. Although, if recent twitter spats are to be believed, I think the cracks might be starting to show in some. For me, cases like that do become embarrassing when we go after Green members for displaying Nimbyism only to be display it ourselves.
Housing and infrastructure are vital areas for any government aiming to correct societal divides. Yet, we sometimes found ourselves caught opposing local development projects and planning reform, under the guise of protecting natural beauty which sometimes can be a bit unfounded. Evidently, as mentioned, in by-election materials and a recent trade of blows with some LibDem members on X/Twitter who feel some of LibDem MPs recent stances of opposing developments in their areas is seen as a betrayal. While we’ve courted support from some ‘soft Tories’ who are happy to vote for us and become members because of advocacy of free trade and re-joining the Single Market, it can neglect the broader strokes that face the country today. I welcome us being a broad church where we’ve plucked support from “soft Tories”; well meaning, middle class, moderate former Conservatives who attend Pride parades and deplore the divisive politics that was propped up by the last Government. However, we do need our politics to be a bit more ambitious than that like on planning and housing even if we have to tell them some uncomfortable truths.
So I say to readers in Blue Wall seats, let us remain hopeful for our LibDem blue wall victors. I ask people to remain vigilant about how these LibDem MPs act in these Blue Wall constituencies and, where possible, constructively challenge them if it seems at odds of what we promised. We made it an election promise to build 150k social homes a year, 380k homes and reforming planning. I know we can be brave on this before, having had a showdown with our Leader ,to keep those as a party platform and I am confident that together we can do it again.
* Andrew Chandler is the Digital Officer for North Staffordshire Liberal Democrats
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
30 Comments
Although an interesting and important topic, I find the content of this article somewhat heavy on the rhetoric, but rather light on factual analysis. For example, it is a convenient meme of the new to denegrate the old. When it is justified and based on evidence that is fine and good, but when it is simply confused and misguided rhetoric, it is dangerous, and some parts of this are confusing and others are dangerous.
For example, what does “It’s our duty to ensure that the gains we’ve made in the Blue Wall, while substantiated, also remains meaningful and sometimes brave,” actually mean? What on earth can we do to provide extra evidence of the gains? How can those gains be given more meaning and made brave? The decision to target so many and use Ed in news ways to raise our profile was brave.
Similarly a statement like “Our strategy back then led to a disjointed campaign that hurt us later” is so lacking in substantiation, it is dangerous. The strategy in 2005 was to win as many seats as possible through tagetting in order to give us a chance of being in government. it worked.
The problem is that Britain desperately needs more housing, but the Blue Wall desperately don’t want it in their backyard. Hence the Lib Dems are challenged by a conflict between doing the right thing and doing the politically expedient thing.
A partial resolution to that conflict would be to condemn developer-led house-building, which concretes over the countryside with badly built “executive” housing for those who can find enough money for a deposit, while failing to help the poor and the homeless. Yes, that would mean government-led social housing development instead, ideally concentrated on brownfield land and new town developments. The Blue Wall might be persuaded to see that as a somewhat lesser evil.
Starmer, sadly, instead wants to give the developers their head. Their performance does not deserve it. They will profit, and they won’t solve the housing problem.
Possibly I live just beyond the ‘blue wall’, not that it makes much difference in terms of scope for housing.
The points that David Allen makes are well founded – but irrespective of simply building homes (i.e. not necessarily houses) is the overwhelming need for vastly improved infrastructure, health provision and schooling. It’s at breaking point – we simply can’t keep expanding like this. The coastal strip is now a choked suburbia – you would think twice about even starting to make a discretionary journey.
The reality is that the south east is already choking and Starmer’s promise to build on the green belt is a farce. Surely we need to look elsewhere in the country – that isn’t nimbyism, it’s driven by a desire for balance and a recognition that sucking more and more people into the south east simply isn’t sustainable. Currently a bonanza for developers indeed.
@David Evans
Respectfully I was told that my origonal piece was being too critical and so this is an evident piece. I actually had an original piece that didn’t tip toe around the issue. So if you feel that it’s a bit too rhetorical then it wasn’t intended but this was a new piece that i had to wrote based on the advice of the editors.
So I would be careful when saying stuff like that because sometimes WE the writer are limited to what we are allowed to exercise and also there is a word limit on this. I don’t have time to go into lengthy detail as I got caught out by the editor before on this issue.
Just try bear that all in mind please.
@David Allen
Apologises about the typos just in my reply to you. Problems when using a phone instead of a computer. Much comfortable with a keyboard.
But honestly David, I did have another piece but sadly I think due to what the editors thought were complications i was unable to exercise my full piece. So again, please bear in mind we are restricted to word counts and again if it sounds rhetorical it wasn’t intended. I can’t really give a lot of detail.
And tbh, David, the 2005 was actually a disappointing election. Instead of targeting Labour seats we did a decapitation strategy which went after the Tories. We missed an opportunity to really throw ourselves on Labour’s turf. It was a very misfired chance when Labour was at its most popular, we were are our most progressive to go after Labour. Instead we tried to go after the Conservative shadow cabinet in 2005 which didn’t utilmately pay off. And it meant we sort of compromised what we were saying locally to the Tory targets against what was being said nationally.
@David Allen sorry both were for @David Evans so the second wasn’t intended for you @David Allen. Apologies, too many Davids aha. Think I’m not in a good enough headspace to be responding today so I’m going to limit my responses in the chat.
Ref Graham Jeffs 16th Jul ’24 – 2:18pm
“The coastal strip is now a choked suburbia – you would think twice about even starting to make a discretionary journey. ”
Indeed. and on the coast apart from the ‘choked suburbia’ areas (e.g. around Worthing) they can’t build safely because of the risk of coastal flooding.
“Surely we need to look elsewhere in the country – that isn’t nimbyism, it’s driven by a desire for balance……..”
Seconded
‘There are nearly 700,000 homes in England… standing empty. Over 261,000 of these are classed as ‘long-term empty’.. (Action on Empty Homes).
As others have said, all developers want to do is build ‘executive homes,’ on greenfield sites.They also drag their feet for years (or forever) on promised amenities to go with them.
Relaxing planning regulations isn’t going to change that. Doing more about existing empty homes – and enabling change of use from boarded-up shops to residential in high streets – would be much better.
@Cassie
Oh I completely agree with you on there as well. I didn’t neglect that in my piece where I said my area should get a look in, and to be honest there are many empty buildings where I live in Stoke and this isn’t isolated to just housing but also retail properties. I do agree that many areas like mine and other with different geography is in need of repurpose. Although, Brownfields can be considered as “polluted” lands and obviously building on former retail properties also carries their own infrastructure difficulties, red tape and hoops to go through. My uncle is a retired Director of his Quantity Surveying company; he tells me that Brownfields can be just as burdensome and costly if not more so to develop on. That’s been some of his experiences.
Also, essentially someone does own these empty properties (whether they do this due to hording or whatever I can’t say) and if people are not willing to sell or repurpose these I don’t know how we achieve this unless we start having “French style” purchases where people are forced to sell or taxed heavily. I believed it’s been tried in Paris with some very mixed results.
Plus it does neglect that their are over 1.5million people on the social housing waiting lists and many under 30’s are living with mum and Dad. We are probably talking millions of people needing of homes so that 700,000 figure won’t plug that gap alone.
@Cassie
To extend this, I am calling for a balanced approach on this and where I am in agreement with you is that we probably need to tackle long-term empty.
Possibly a way around this would be to have some kind of Occupancy Register or something where people have to confirm the current status of their property with perhaps both a carrot and stick approach in how we can repurpose these. However, given the challenge Paris has faced (which also got watered down to what they originally intended) I can also see political hurdles in that. I can see it now, gasps of the Big Brother, the Big State interfering which also in itself will have to carry some political bravery.
We definitely need a multi-pronged approach for this and no single article, never mind comment, can do justice to what is required. But I agree consideration must be given to empty properties, including commercial units that could be converted. If only so it can’t be used as an excuse not to build new properties.
IMO we need to stop throwing the term NIMBY about. It’s a bit like calling someone a racist or bigot as a short-cut to win an argument. It’s lazy and often a sign the person isn’t that sure of details of the arguments, and crucially – doesn’t change the minds you want to change.
We need to understand why people think development in a particular area is not suitable. Often it would be suitable if there were adequate infrastructure, or if access to green spaces is maintained etc. Instead of name-calling – sort that out. We’re supposed to be a party that advocates good mental health, so we shouldn’t push any development that will lock-in poor mental health for future residents or anyone else already in the area.
Amongst many other proposals, we need to focus on high quality social housing in existing communities and brand new mixed-density garden cities/villages that are planned as communities with public transport and active travel in mind.
In reply to various comments: I don’t think we can blame developers for building the houses they think they can most easily sell for a profit. It’s not their job – nor is it the job of any private company – to facilitate desirable social policies. Rather, it’s up to the Government to ensure that the planning/regulatory environment encourages building the houses and infrastructure we need.
Deliberately building outside the SouthEast is not going to help much if the SouthEast is where people want to live.
261K long term empty homes sounds a lot, but set against the aim of building 3M houses a year – which seems to be accepted as the absolute minimum we need to build long term if we are to get a grip on the housing shortage – 261K is nothing. By all means look for ways to encourage property owners not to leave houses empty, but on those stats that’s going to make at most a marginal difference to the shortage.
@Simon R
“Deliberately building outside the SouthEast is not going to help much if the SouthEast is where people want to live.”
If, for example, people are living in SE but travelling long distances to work regularly in another region – they may WANT to live in SE but what they are actually doing may be environmentally damaging if the travel is by road.
The author & neither have those that have responded have mentioned immigration…
Yearly net migration is running at 650k + a city the size of Bristol…How many is too many ?
We’ve 1.2 million on the social housing waiting list – soaring private rents. Anybody who thinks this is sustainable in the long-term is being disingenuous…
@ David Allen – “The problem is that Britain desperately needs more housing”
The shortage of housing is just a symptom. The real problem is Britain needs a population policy with the objective of making this country more sustainable by circa 2050. Based on pre 1997 population, there was no real housing crisis, just some readjustment due to changing numbers of people per household.
This is the uncomfortable truth; Westminster over successive governments created the current housing crisis.
The second uncomfortable truth is building yet more houses won’t solve the housing crisis, for reasons regularly discussed and pointed out on LDV, some of which have also been listed above, yet some still believe in the myth…
The third uncomfortable truth is that adding yet more people won’t increase the size of the real economy and thus will increase the level of indebtedness as the country has to import even more, just to survive…
@Andy Chandler – Fair enough Andy. The extra context you provided is helpful.
I hope you note that I tried to direct my post at the article, not you personally, but it can seem very close to personal even if it isn’t intended to be. I don’t blame you, particularly if you had to re-write it.
It is very difficult to re-write something when you have already produced something you think is close to spot on. Often it just doesn’t work.
All the best in your endeavours.
David
@Martin Gray and @Roland
Not in complete disagreement there either.
I do think we need to exercise some caution as we need to have a reasonable immigration policy. We have got an aging population which is obviously going to cause issues like tax receipts and more pressure on social care, pensions etc. It’s a symptom that has been experienced by Japan – although Japan by far has a more problematic immigration policy on the other extreme. They simply are not producing enough children and it’s workforce and population and economy is declining/stagnant and I think Britain is also having declining birth rates which is putting us in the same situation.
So I am in agreement, somewhat, but we can’t also be too short-sighted on this policy as I don’t want us to be in the danger of experiencing what is happening in Japan. People over 70s is expected to grow from 12% currently to 20% by 2060 which is not going to be sustainable and with more people living longer I also expect more pressure in social care and health.
The way I see it’s about Government choices and Government did make not make a choices of meeting demand of immigration with infrastructure or housing but as someone who is going to be one of those over 70s brackets by 2060 we also got to have a reasonable policy but one that does compliment what is neglected when you don’t have longsighted in meeting those demands.
@David Evans
No worries David and I will extend my apologises as well. It’s very hard to communicate in text sometimes so I don’t wish to make you feel uncomfortable as that’s the point of debate and perhaps my own wires got a bit crossed. It’s worthy of this conversation as I know it’s not an easy topic and I sort of sit in the middle on the issue between sharing burdens to help repurpose development in city centres but also extending it into other areas.
Probably a slight frustration on my part not having an opportunity to fully express/explore my viewpoints but that is what the site rules are here for. You have sometimes limit yourself based on the advice of peers.
But thank you, and it’s always good to have earthy debate
All best to you as well Andy 🙂
As Liberal Democrats, we should have consistent national policies.
When it comes to housing and other forms of development such as more electricity pylons, more rail lines, local objections must not be allowed to stop development that is in the national interest. Doing so makes most Britons poorer to preserve the amenities of small numbers of wealthy people who know how to petition their MPs and local councillors to block such planning.
In terms of policies, cities need to build higher, as Manchester is doing, while also building on green belt land where it makes sense to do so, for example around transport hubs in the green belt.
@ Andy,
As the Chair of a small Parish Council in one of the remaining fragments of the Blue Wall here in Suffolk, I’m not so sure that there is such an objection to new housing here. And, when you look at parish neighbourhood plans, you’ll often find that a pragmatic approach is taken towards development.
The catch is that, as our communities lose facilities – schools, shops, bus services to name but three – new developments mean putting people in places that require multiple car ownership and longer journey times to access services. In other words, they aren’t truly sustainable. Overcome that, and building new homes in a wider spectrum of communities becomes more viable. Indeed, I would argue that the future of rural communities requires new development to maintain their viability.
I now live in a county town, where the retail heart is shrinking, and office buildings are falling vacant. Developing affordable housing in the core of towns such as Ipswich offers the prospect of enlivening the town after the shops close, enticing new businesses to serve the new residents and reducing our carbon footprint by negating the need for multiple car ownership amongst households.
So, there’s a balance to be had here, if we are willing to work with the communities we represent, rather than condemning them for resisting poorly planned, unaffordable housing developments that overwhelm the services available to support them.
@Mohammed Amin
I think you pretty much understand the spirit of this letter in that keeping with that consistency is very important and you provided some more excellent examples that helps expand my points, and antidotes that I symphysis with.
What I probably neglect to say more, which you have stated, is that it goes beyond just housing, bricks and mortar infrastructure but also economic infrastructure like energy units/plants, pylons railway lines and other bits of national connectivity. While the failure to provide enough housing has been a big feature (and admittedly I probably focused too much on the housing part) it’s not the full story. Britain hasn’t had any major infrastructure projects and economic planning/strategy for a long time (probably not even under Blair-Brown). That’s really been the neglect of the last Government. We’ve haven’t invested into Britain’s economic, energy, transport etc. infrastructure.
And what concerned me was recently a LibDem MP opposing attempts to develop solar panels in her area which is going to be vital the Green transition and I just feel this is only going to frustrate any attempts of ‘getting growth’ as so many politicians keep promising.
And your example of Manchester is a good one. My uncle (retired Director of his Quantity Surveying Company) all but knows attempts to build transport hubs has been backfired by the sort of examples of people you described even when they modified their development to meet their needs.
@Mark Valladres
Thanks for sharing your own experience. It’s great that your local Parish seem reasonable when it comes to this and I’m glad to see examples where they seem productive in the debate.
I completely get you on this. I completely agree in the need for robust planning when factoring other infrastructures when developing new housing communities. I feel that has been the neglect of the last Government because the ambition was there but the resources wasn’t – and again faced some fierce local opposition when it lacked a strategy or lack of bravery. I also share your view that when done right, more longsightedness and strategy, then these rural communities, which vitally need their own areas to be regenerated and repurposed, it rewarding.
I think like I said to Mohammed I probably spent too much just on housing. Allowing to expand a bit it’s not just housing, bricks and mortar infrastructure but also economic infrastructure like pylons, railway lines, etc.. My Uncle (retired Director of his Quantity Surveying Company) when he was part of efforts to help develop transport hubs, or economic infrastructure etc. that was all too often frustrated by people who we’re not reasonable or balanced to understand it’s understand it’s dividends which then blew up in the air other projects. I saw a LibDem MP opposing solar panels (vital for net-zero, energy security) – she might have her legit concerns but to say it didn’t go down well with LibDem members was a understatement.
Regarding the desire to live in the most crowded parts of the South-East – the pressure on housing is a symptom of having our economy, and the best public transport, concentrated there. More investment to support good jobs and culture away from London is required. Remote and hybrid working helps too.
Some villages become nothing more than remote car-dependent housing estates, which needs to be reversed. Some worry that too much extra housing built rapidly means their village loses its character and it will be even harder to see the GP. In practice, the extra housing might be the only thing that allows the village to hang onto a GP practice, village shop/pub and bus service. Can planning authorities encourage expansion of villages that facilitates the reintroduction of said shops and pubs after the last one closed? Will they ensure the layout allows residents in the new houses to easily walk to their nearest bus stop?
Phasing and types of housing are key. Rapidly building homes for families with young children and two cars who expect to drive to the main town for services, it a headache for school provision, and you will end up with lots of bored teens ten years down the line. Mixing up types of housing, with enough low-rise flats near to main roads (and bus stops) makes bus services, pubs and post offices more viable. Planning Authorities must be able to control the mix and timing of new builds to suit local needs.
Reform and the Tories won most of the over 65 vote. The Lib Dems did better with working age people. So I don’t think the Lib Dems need to be as scared of house building as some MPs might think. The Lib Dems should be the party of middle class working age professionals since this is the group most abandoned by the Tories. And this group used to be solidly Tory historically. Don’t let the Lib Dems revert to being a party of kooky sandal wearers banging on about whatever issue they happen to be obsessed with. Many working age professionals are sympathetic to house building. They will also probably worry potentially about taxes going up too much. But that will probably hit in 5 plus years time etc…
@Kyle – we shouldn’t position ourselves based on what abandoned Tory voters want or there will be lots of LibDem voters abandoning us – including me. We should position ourselves on what we believe to be right, based on what’s best for everyone (not just the middle-classes), and persuading abandoned Tory and tactical Labour/Green voters alike that we have the best policies.
I don’t know which policies you consider to be for kooky sandal wearers, but protecting the environment, promoting liveable neighbourhoods and ensuring housing doesn’t make people ill are issues we should all be obsessed with.
A recent paper for BMJ Public Health showed reduced mortality, as well as reduced prescriptions for those who actively commute to work, with particular benefits for cyclists.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1051263?
Bike storage and pedestrian and cycle routes into and out of new housing developments, ideally linking to larger networks, should be seen as a basic requirement.
There was another recent study showing that pensioners who regularly use public transport are healthier than those who don’t after factoring for confounding factors. There are debates to be had on how much is association rather than causation, but IMO it is unethical to build new housing without giving future residents the choice of active travel and public transport.
@Simon R – “I don’t think we can blame developers for building the houses they think they can most easily sell for a profit.”
However, the reason they can build whatever is most profitable for them is due to a lack of direction, along with the will and teeth to enforce.
There is no reason why the government can’t specify the mix of housing and contract with developers to build the houses… We are seeing a little bit of this with the “social housing” requirement.
Additionally, the government needs to rapidly upgrade the building regulations: there really is no reason why any new houses built in the last 20 years aren’t carbon neutral, highly energy efficient etc. and provide the same living space that council homes have to provide…
From the “industry expert” comments on this, we can be sure the planning system will become even more undemocratic, and the homes that will be built will be substandard both in terms of construction and in terms of amenity.
@Andy Chandler – “I do think we need to exercise some caution as we need to have a reasonable immigration policy. We have got an aging population which is obviously going to cause issues like tax receipts and more pressure on social care, pensions etc.”
Dont disagree, however, much depends upon the word “reasonable”. I suggest currently we don’t have a “reasonable immigration policy” otherwise it wouldn’t be causing problems. One of the big problems is exactly the one you point out, the current immigration policy and its implementation is adding to the ageing population problem and done very little to contribute to (non-financial services) export growth – necessary given how much the UK is dependent upon cheap imports.
@Simon R – “I don’t think we can blame developers for building the houses they think they can most easily sell for a profit.”
I, for one, wasn’t blaming them for that. Just stating a fact.
Blaming them for promising amenities (to get planning permission) that they then find endless excuses to delay, however…
“Blaming them for promising amenities (to get planning permission) that they then find endless excuses to delay, however…”
A key issue and the one which results in rural communities to the relatively well-to-do with cars.
Ultimately – you cannot sustain the current levels of immigration, & solve the housing crisis simultaneously…Sadly too many progressives are infatuated with student politics & have zero understanding the effect immigration has on post industrial towns – that’s because many live a comfortable middle class life in the leafy suburbs & beyond ..What’s happening in Ireland has the potential to happen here – troubling times ahead …