Even if Street Votes was the panacea for all our ills, and even if they got it passed by Parliament, it still wouldn't have worked, as it would have required people on any given street to agree.
As someone who lives on a street, I have always known this was utter bollocks, no one will ever agree to anything. You couldn't get a supermajority on our street for free money for everyone, as some people would rather not have free money than allow the neighbour they despise to have it.
Multiply that exponentially for street votes. No one is going to vote for years of building work in their street. It's madness to think they would.
I've always been amazed at how these otherwise intelligent people seem so completely incapable of understanding the usual dynamic of the British public.
The mansards never suggest reducing demand by deporting or otherwise removing millions of foreigners. The idea of making the Boriswave leave even through pink and fluffy methods e.g. removing visas is alien to them.
Nice article but the "Street Votes" aim was higher "densification" in already congested areas and this has three very large problems:
* Existing home owners already have already achieved massive capital gain redistributed from the lower classes and their highest priority is to avoid losing them rather then making them even bigger with "densification" and therefore are opposed to *any* change.
* No funding was allocated to provide more public infrastructure such as bigger roads, more frequent public transport, more water supply, more electricity supply, more schools, more doctor surgeries, to the areas where population density were to increase; the idea was that incumbent property owners would make big money from "densification" and nobody would have to pay the related infrastructure costs.
* The even bigger problem is that housing is not an independent variable, it inevitably is for most people merely a way to commute to jobs, and the main problem with housing in the UK is not that the housing is not "densified" enough, but that many if not most well-paying jobs are too "densified" in a few congested areas to which all recent government have spent a lot of money to attract even more jobs to increase house prices in them.
Then there is a much bigger issue that is not specific to "Street Votes" or other egghead-style idea to achieve higher "densification":
* Rising house prices are the foundation of the electoral success of both Conservative and New Labour thatcherism because...
* Thatcherism is mostly about cutting labour costs and cutting government services.
* Wage and salary workers are a majority of voters and they can be expected to vote against cutting labour costs and government services.
* But those workers who are also *incumbent* property owners will vote for thatcherism if property prices rise by more than their wages and salaries and government services are being cut, in particular if they are retired and no longer are workers.
«the owners of suburban terraces would eagerly rebuild their cul-de-sacs as Georgian mansion blocks complete with fresh mansards, and sell them at great profi [...] pass Street Votes and that this would completely solve the housing crisis.»
Mansardism (an earlier instance of "abundance" thatcherism) also had a fundamental contradictioon builtin: that at the same time incumbent owners could make big profits while solving the housing crisis by bringing property prices down.
Perhaps both could be achieved by increasing the supply of sellable or rentable square feet by more than the increased supply would cut the price or rent per square foot, but I guess that would require a large increase in demand for housing, that is a big wave of immigration. Which I think is a one of the policies most beloved by the same "abundance" thatcherite think-tanks pushing mansardism.
I don't think Street Votes are a terrible idea, it would probably produce some marginal benefit in supply constrained cities.
I view British YIMBYs in a similar light to San Fransisco technologists. 'Smart people' with zero idea how to actually engender political change or influence power. You have millionaires and billionaires unable to tackle human exterminate on the street, insane homeless people, open air drug markets, all while paying the highest taxes in the US.
«You have millionaires and billionaires unable to tackle human exterminate on the street, insane homeless people, open air drug markets»
Upper-middle class and upper class people live in HOA estates, gated communities, palaces with parks, which are kept immaculate by many servants and safe by security operatives. Why should they pay higher taxes to provide the same benefits to other property owners?
«the empty promises of Keir Starmer. Taking his vague indication of an intention to build more and his commitment to siding ‘with the builders, not the blockers’ as evidence»
Starmer is a New Labour person (a member of the Mandelson Tendency) and his historical role was to ensure continuity of thatcherism regardless of whoever won the 2024 election and all his policies have been thatcherite and his "intention to build more" was exactly the same with the same target numbers as that of all previous government, that is pure propaganda.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/19/labour-urges-tory-backbench-rebellion-in-planning-reform-vote «Labour will attempt to heap pressure on Boris Johnson over his planning reforms after the Tories’ byelection defeat by calling on backbench rebels to support the opposition in a Commons vote. Sir Keir Starmer’s party has tabled a debate calling for the prime minister to change one of the most controversial proposals by giving communities greater oversight of planning applications.»
«The few pro-housing members of the Labour Party are marginalised and hated. The mainstream Labour view of the housing crisis is that it is primarily a shortage of council housing, and any policy that allows any more private housing,and god forbid allows anyone in the south of England to make any money, is suspect.»
The core constituency of New Labour and Starmer is southern property owners ("hero tory voters") and secondarily northern property-owning voters. As to "anyone in the south of England to make any money" property price increases do not (strictly speaking) *make* any money, they merely redistribute money upwards.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/22/labour-targets-new-swing-voter-middle-aged-mortgage-man «Party sees identifying 50-year-old male home-owners as key to electoral success this archetypical voter as male, 50 years old, without a university degree but with a decent job in the private sector and, crucially, a homeowner with a mortgage. This person almost certainly voted leave, Ford added, explaining Labour’s insistence that it will not take the UK back into the single market.»
«What the Labour party is interested in is making more of the existing housing stock council housing and distributing it to their voters at the expense of the working population, rather than building anything.»
Sure they are against any new building but not to build council housing which only breeds traditional Labour voters, but to buy the votes of thatcherite southern (and secondarily northern) voters
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/05/house-prices-freefall-property-ownership-rent-britain «The foreground of Labour policy, however, is all about home ownership. Not unreasonably, Keir Starmer sees buying a house as “the bedrock of security and aspiration”, and often makes glowing references to the pebble-dashed semi in which he grew up. Given the chance, he will apparently lead a government set on pursuing a 70% target for home ownership, up from England’s current figure of 64%. There is talk of a new mortgage guarantee scheme; the party’s first actions in government will include “helping first-time buyers on to the housing ladder and building more affordable homes by reforming planning rules”. Labour, we are told, “is the party of home ownership in Britain today”. This is hardly outrageous: it is the kind of thing that politicians think they need to say to get elected.»
Very wise final para, and wisdom I need to repeat to myself on a regular basis.
Is being a member of the SDP not similar to being a YIMBY?
Even if Street Votes was the panacea for all our ills, and even if they got it passed by Parliament, it still wouldn't have worked, as it would have required people on any given street to agree.
As someone who lives on a street, I have always known this was utter bollocks, no one will ever agree to anything. You couldn't get a supermajority on our street for free money for everyone, as some people would rather not have free money than allow the neighbour they despise to have it.
Multiply that exponentially for street votes. No one is going to vote for years of building work in their street. It's madness to think they would.
I've always been amazed at how these otherwise intelligent people seem so completely incapable of understanding the usual dynamic of the British public.
The mansards never suggest reducing demand by deporting or otherwise removing millions of foreigners. The idea of making the Boriswave leave even through pink and fluffy methods e.g. removing visas is alien to them.
Nice article but the "Street Votes" aim was higher "densification" in already congested areas and this has three very large problems:
* Existing home owners already have already achieved massive capital gain redistributed from the lower classes and their highest priority is to avoid losing them rather then making them even bigger with "densification" and therefore are opposed to *any* change.
* No funding was allocated to provide more public infrastructure such as bigger roads, more frequent public transport, more water supply, more electricity supply, more schools, more doctor surgeries, to the areas where population density were to increase; the idea was that incumbent property owners would make big money from "densification" and nobody would have to pay the related infrastructure costs.
* The even bigger problem is that housing is not an independent variable, it inevitably is for most people merely a way to commute to jobs, and the main problem with housing in the UK is not that the housing is not "densified" enough, but that many if not most well-paying jobs are too "densified" in a few congested areas to which all recent government have spent a lot of money to attract even more jobs to increase house prices in them.
Then there is a much bigger issue that is not specific to "Street Votes" or other egghead-style idea to achieve higher "densification":
* Rising house prices are the foundation of the electoral success of both Conservative and New Labour thatcherism because...
* Thatcherism is mostly about cutting labour costs and cutting government services.
* Wage and salary workers are a majority of voters and they can be expected to vote against cutting labour costs and government services.
* But those workers who are also *incumbent* property owners will vote for thatcherism if property prices rise by more than their wages and salaries and government services are being cut, in particular if they are retired and no longer are workers.
«the owners of suburban terraces would eagerly rebuild their cul-de-sacs as Georgian mansion blocks complete with fresh mansards, and sell them at great profi [...] pass Street Votes and that this would completely solve the housing crisis.»
Mansardism (an earlier instance of "abundance" thatcherism) also had a fundamental contradictioon builtin: that at the same time incumbent owners could make big profits while solving the housing crisis by bringing property prices down.
Perhaps both could be achieved by increasing the supply of sellable or rentable square feet by more than the increased supply would cut the price or rent per square foot, but I guess that would require a large increase in demand for housing, that is a big wave of immigration. Which I think is a one of the policies most beloved by the same "abundance" thatcherite think-tanks pushing mansardism.
I don't think Street Votes are a terrible idea, it would probably produce some marginal benefit in supply constrained cities.
I view British YIMBYs in a similar light to San Fransisco technologists. 'Smart people' with zero idea how to actually engender political change or influence power. You have millionaires and billionaires unable to tackle human exterminate on the street, insane homeless people, open air drug markets, all while paying the highest taxes in the US.
«You have millionaires and billionaires unable to tackle human exterminate on the street, insane homeless people, open air drug markets»
Upper-middle class and upper class people live in HOA estates, gated communities, palaces with parks, which are kept immaculate by many servants and safe by security operatives. Why should they pay higher taxes to provide the same benefits to other property owners?
«the empty promises of Keir Starmer. Taking his vague indication of an intention to build more and his commitment to siding ‘with the builders, not the blockers’ as evidence»
Starmer is a New Labour person (a member of the Mandelson Tendency) and his historical role was to ensure continuity of thatcherism regardless of whoever won the 2024 election and all his policies have been thatcherite and his "intention to build more" was exactly the same with the same target numbers as that of all previous government, that is pure propaganda.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/19/labour-urges-tory-backbench-rebellion-in-planning-reform-vote «Labour will attempt to heap pressure on Boris Johnson over his planning reforms after the Tories’ byelection defeat by calling on backbench rebels to support the opposition in a Commons vote. Sir Keir Starmer’s party has tabled a debate calling for the prime minister to change one of the most controversial proposals by giving communities greater oversight of planning applications.»
«The few pro-housing members of the Labour Party are marginalised and hated. The mainstream Labour view of the housing crisis is that it is primarily a shortage of council housing, and any policy that allows any more private housing,and god forbid allows anyone in the south of England to make any money, is suspect.»
The core constituency of New Labour and Starmer is southern property owners ("hero tory voters") and secondarily northern property-owning voters. As to "anyone in the south of England to make any money" property price increases do not (strictly speaking) *make* any money, they merely redistribute money upwards.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/22/labour-targets-new-swing-voter-middle-aged-mortgage-man «Party sees identifying 50-year-old male home-owners as key to electoral success this archetypical voter as male, 50 years old, without a university degree but with a decent job in the private sector and, crucially, a homeowner with a mortgage. This person almost certainly voted leave, Ford added, explaining Labour’s insistence that it will not take the UK back into the single market.»
«What the Labour party is interested in is making more of the existing housing stock council housing and distributing it to their voters at the expense of the working population, rather than building anything.»
Sure they are against any new building but not to build council housing which only breeds traditional Labour voters, but to buy the votes of thatcherite southern (and secondarily northern) voters
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/05/house-prices-freefall-property-ownership-rent-britain «The foreground of Labour policy, however, is all about home ownership. Not unreasonably, Keir Starmer sees buying a house as “the bedrock of security and aspiration”, and often makes glowing references to the pebble-dashed semi in which he grew up. Given the chance, he will apparently lead a government set on pursuing a 70% target for home ownership, up from England’s current figure of 64%. There is talk of a new mortgage guarantee scheme; the party’s first actions in government will include “helping first-time buyers on to the housing ladder and building more affordable homes by reforming planning rules”. Labour, we are told, “is the party of home ownership in Britain today”. This is hardly outrageous: it is the kind of thing that politicians think they need to say to get elected.»