“Whatever the restrictions they face, the choices councils make are political ones”

Manchester Town Hall. Image: Getty.

How we run local communities, what services are provided and by whom, are deeply political questions. The philosophical traditions of the two main parties in Britain differ greatly on state involvement at every level: national, local and international.

So I take umbrage when people try to divide politics neatly into pragmatism and ideology. This was the argument set forth by Claire Kober, until very recently leader of Haringey Council, and the woman at the eye of the storm over the Haringey Delivery Vehicle programme to build new homes and regenerate old council properties. There are already a million articles written on that topic, so I don’t intend to go into the rights and wrongs of the case here. What concerns me is the framing of politics vs pragmatism that Kober sets out.

It is certainly the case that the left can put unreasonable demands on Labour councils. Local authorities are severely hampered both by austerity and by overbearing central restrictions: few seem to understand this when calling for illegal budget setting or non-statutory services that are impossible to deliver without outside investment.

It’s the case, too, that the reason the system is close to breaking is the pressure put on councils by the extreme ideological cuts to their funding that have crippled them since 2010.

But the opposite of unreasonable is not apolitical. Whatever the restrictions they face, the choices councils are political ones. Claire Kober describes herself as a pragmatic socialist – but as such, the people who agree with her need not just to make the case for pragmatism, but to argue why their pragmatism is socialist too.

Equally, the MPs who have declared no confidence in Northamptonshire County Council need to explain how – under their government’s ‘devolved axe’ – they would do things differently in and for their county. If they believe in letting local government be freer, leaner and less dependent on central grant money, they need to make the capitalist case for that freedom, and the winners and – inevitably – losers that competition creates. How would their national vision translate to Northamptonshire, its local challenges, demographics and needs?

But unfortunately, across the board in politics, we give very little priority to the local. This means that in general, it is not politics that's missing from most conversations about local government, but politics at the right level. Too often, litmus tests on national or international issues decide who a faction of the local party will back when it comes to council selections. In Labour, a person's view on the Middle East might well trump their vision for local service delivery. For the Tories, it's their view on Brexit, not bins, that really matters.


Voters are often the same, punishing local politicians for decisions made by national parties, seeing council elections just as referenda on the government of the day or how they think the opposition is doing. The parties reflect this by running election broadcasts on national issues or national leadership. It wins them votes, so you can understand it – but more and more, we denigrate the understanding of what local government does, who does it, what they do it for and why.

Labour councillors are not making decisions about private investment because they are ideologically wedded to the private sector. They believe, as all socialists and social democrats do, in using the state to improve the lives of the people of their boroughs. They just believe that under current circumstances, the kinds of challenges they face need far greater investment than the government is willing to provide. So, they feel they have to look to the private sector to do so.

Equally, most of the left is not opposing these decisions because they want to stop new housing being built, but because they genuinely believe there are better solutions that don’t lead to a diminishing of public stock. They are willing to trade conditions likely to lead to short term inaction for a chance at better solutions long term.

As to the Tories, they believe that a reduction in state dependency is going to be good for people in the long term. And so, they need to make the case for how that works in areas that fall short as Northamptonshire has, instead of simply playing the blame game. The party of central government and the party of local government in Northamptonshire are the same. If these MPs want to make the case that the failure there isn’t a Conservative one, they will need sharper answers than simply devolving blame.

There may well be answers that speak to both short and long term radicalism. But to find them, protagonists from both sides of Labour’s factional debate or the Conservatives national/local split will have to adopt a better, more open, understanding of where each side is coming from. If local Labour Parties can drop the fights over national issues, it might be possible to allow their shared ideology to come up with a solution that serves their community best. If Tories can work together to support local government struggling to impose national cuts, they might find better ways of delivering at each level. There may well be compromises that can be found through imagination, local action and local knowledge – but to find them, parties will have to set aside their internal differences and do the hard work of agreeing strategy and delivering for the people who elect them.

We need to put ideology back into the local government conversation. As politics has become more ideological again, it is important that the parties are able to offer their communities fierce competition over what they will do for and with them. If Capitalism or Socialism don’t work locally, they can’t work nationally. Big ideas don’t have to be played out on big stages.

 
 
 
 

Here’s how Henry Ford and IKEA could provide the key to solving the housing crisis

A flatpack house designed by architectural firm Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners, on display at the Royal Academy, London, in 2013. Image: Getty.

For many people, the housing market is not a welcoming place. The rungs of the property ladder seem to get further and further out of reach. There are loud calls to build hundreds of thousands of new homes (and equally loud demands that they’re not built in anyone’s back yard).

If there was ever a time to introduce mass-produced affordable housing, surely that time is now.

The benefits of mass production have been well known since Henry Ford’s car factories made the Model T back in 1908. It was only made in one colour, black, for economic reasons. Not because it was the cheapest colour of paint, but because it was the colour that dried the quickest.

This allowed the production line to operate at faster, more cost effective, speeds. And ultimately, it meant the product could be sold at a more attractive cost to the customer.

This approach, where processes are tested to achieve increasingly efficient production costs, is yet to filter properly into the construction of houses. This makes sense in a way, as not everybody wants exactly the same type of house.

Historically, affordable mass-produced housing removed a large amount of customisations, to ensure final costs were controlled. But there is another way. Builders and architects have the ability to create housing that allows a level of flexibility and customisation, yet also achieves the goal of affordability.


Back in 2006, the “BoKlok” approach to affordable housing was launched to great acclaim in the UK. Literally translated from Swedish, the term means “live smart”. Originally created from a collaboration between flat-pack favourite IKEA and Swedish construction giant Skanska, the BoKlok housing approach was to allow for selected customisation to maximise individuality and choice for the customers. But at the same time, it ensured that larger house building components were duplicated or mass-produced, to bring down the overall costs.

Standard elements – wall panels, doors, windows – were made in large numbers to bring the elemental costs down. This approach ensured the costs were controlled from the initial sketch ideas through to the final design choices offered to the customers. The kitchens and bathrooms were designed to be flexible in terms of adding additional units. Draw and cupboard fronts interchangeable. Small options that provided flexibility, but did not impact on overall affordability.

It’s a simple approach that has worked very well. More than 10,000 BoKlok houses have now been built, mainly in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, with a small number in the UK.

But it is only part of the architectural equation. The affordable housing market is vital, but the cost of making these homes more adaptable is rarely considered.

Flexibility is key. The needs of a house’s inhabitants change. Families can grow (and shrink) and require more room, so the costs of moving house reappear. One clever response to this, in BoKlok homes, has been to allow “built in” flexibility.

Loft living

This flexibility could include a loft space that already has flooring and a built in cupboard on a lower floor which can be simply dismantled and replaced with a “flat-pack style” staircase that can be purchased and installed with minimal disruption to the existing fabric.

Weeks of builders removing walls, plastering and upheaval are replaced by a trip to the IKEA store to purchase the staircase and the booking of a subcontractor to fit it. The original design accounted for this “future option” and is built into the core of the house.

The best approach to new affordable housing should consider combinations of factors that look at design, materials and processes that have yet to be widely used in the affordable housing market.

And the construction sector needs to look over its shoulder at other market places – especially the one that Henry Ford dominated over a century ago. Today’s car manufacturers offer customised options in everything from colour to wheel size, interior gadgets to different kinds of headlamp. These options have all been accounted for in the construction and costing of each model.

The ConversationThey share a similar design “platform”, and by doing so, considerably reduce the overall cost of the base model. The benefit is quicker production with the added benefit of a cost model that allows for customisation to be included. It is a method the construction sector should adopt to produce housing where quality and affordability live happily together.

David Morton, Associate Professor in Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.