A Government For Blockers?

Labour isn't building

I voted Labour last year on the understanding that planning reform could forgive a multitude of other sins. The failure to build is core to Britain's economic malaise — if Starmer got that right and not much else, I thought, he would still have moved the country forward.

Unlike his immediate predecessors, Starmer's electoral coalition would give him an incentive to follow through on his rhetoric of "backing the builders not the blockers". As I wrote at the time:

"The vibes are good also for Labour to follow through on their promises. Whilst the Tories talked of building homes, their MPs went back to their constituencies and campaigned against them on behalf of the retired homeowners who vote blue. Labour's voter coalition is a different demographic, skewing younger, much more likely to rent, not drawing their income from pensions or investments."

Planning reform has been a bright spot in an otherwise disappointing first year in power. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of December 2024 restored mandatory housing targets, requiring councils to meet objectively assessed needs. It also allowed for the release of "grey belt" land — parts of the Green Belt that do not serve its environmental purpose — and, crucially, enforced a five-year land supply rule. Under this, councils that fail to deliver 75% of their housing requirement lose their power to block new housing, as the presumption in favour of sustainable development kicks in.

More looked set to come in the Planning & Infrastructure Bill, which proposed a shift from the site-by-site environmental measures that have crushed our hopes of building housing and infrastructure. The bill would allow developers to pay into a central "Nature Restoration Fund" (NRF) to finance larger, more strategic protections for natural habitats.

This was a win-win for developers and the environment. The ineffective and fragmented status quo — which has led to absurdities like a £120m bat shed for HS2 and an acoustic "fish disco" at Hinkley Point C — would be replaced by a system that allows for scientifically-informed projects, like creating new wetlands, that provide better environmental outcomes for less money.

Until this week, when, hot on the heels of U-turns over the winter fuel allowance and disability benefits, the Government has begun to water down its planning reforms. A series of amendments to the Planning & Infrastructure Bill have introduced new hurdles. While framed as safeguards, they add layers of consultation and red tape.

The Secretary of State can now only approve a plan if conservation measures "materially outweigh" the negative effects of development. New rules require developers to detail the sequencing of conservation measures and prove they will work before development can proceed, potentially preventing any work on "rare or fragile" habitats until restoration is already complete. In effect, the strategic approach has been sacrificed to assuage NIMBY pressure groups and troublesome backbenchers.

Bafflingly, Chris Hinchcliffe – the MP who has spearheaded opposition to the bill – was kicked out of the Parliamentary Labour Party for opposing the party line just days before the Government backed down to his demands. This alone is bad, but does not kill off planning reform in its entirety. But it is symptomatic of two things; that the Prime Minister is terminally out of touch with his electoral coalition, and that the government is addicted to U-turns.

Both are bad omens for progress. The NIMBY lobby will never be pleased and is already gearing up to demand further changes to the bill, if the Government is prepared to U-turn on this then what’s to stop it succumbing to pressure to row back even more?

Like the Winter Fuel Allowance u-turn, this decision is out of step with what would benefit Labour’s voters — and the country at large. Pensioners do not vote Labour. Even during the Tory bin fire of 2024, the Conservatives held a 26-point lead over Labour among voters aged 70 or older, with Labour only narrowly beating Reform in that demographic.

By contrast, Labour racked up its biggest leads with those most acutely exposed to the housing crisis, securing 42% of the vote among both social and private renters. It is unlikely that Labour will win in 2029 unless it can demonstrate that it has meaningfully improved public services, and where can it find the money without growth? The latter will continue to flatline until we learn to build again. Labour has U-turned in response to pressure from a demographic that rejects it, while actively betraying the interests of its own supporters.

It’s hard to conclude anything other than that the Prime Minister is the problem. He is not offering direction or leadership, he is shaped by events rather than moulding them himself. But getting rid of him wouldn’t solve much – and besides, it is hard to force a sitting Labour leader from office.

Even if he did depart, the only plausible replacement at present is Angela Rayner – I have seen little in government or in opposition to suggest that she is capable of delivering policy change, and indeed, as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government, the department responsible for this U-turn falls under her direct authority.

The Conservatives meanwhile look to have found their YIMBY in opposition. The party’s grassroots pro-housing group Conservative YIMBY is doing a lot of good work; calling to end the NIMBY loophole in neighbourhood plans, remove council blocks on commercial-to-residential conversions, and unblock schemes stalled by nutrient neutrality rules.

This is part of a wider pro-building philosophy that has taken hold on the Tory benches, particularly concerning energy. The party is now advocating to exempt new nuclear sites from environmental hurdles and end lawfare by making it impossible to challenge new power stations in court, citing the fish disco at Hinkley Point C as the excessive red tape that must be cut to deliver cheap, clean, and secure energy.

If this government cannot deliver on its core promises, perhaps the only hope is for the opposition to find its voice and hold Labour's feet to the fire. The Tories may be down in the polls but their predicament grants an opportunity to build a new electoral coalition, a return to the aspirational pro-growth conservatism of times past.

The alternative is grim. Britain's fiscal position is perilous, and without the growth that a radical building agenda can unlock, the country will continue its slide towards insolvency. The OBR's July 2025 report on fiscal risks paints a picture: government debt stands at 94% of GDP — its highest level since the early 1960s — while the deficit is 5.7% of GDP, one of the highest among advanced economies.

If the state’s problems can’t be addressed by a government with a landslide majority and a supportive electoral coalition then maybe change will come only when Britain is bankrupt and left with no other choice. Either way, the verdict on the first year is clear: Keir Starmer is proving to be a disappointing Prime Minister, and his Labour government is failing to deliver for its voters or the country.

Thank you for reading Build Vector, if you’ve enjoyed this piece then please consider subscribing, it’s free and you have nothing to lose except a tiny portion of your life. You can find me on X @Jack_Nostalgic