“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.

 
 
 
 

Could modular housing help Britain build the homes it needs?

Pre-fabricated housing being moved into position in Los Angeles in 2012. Image: Getty.

We’ve got ambitious government targets, an appetite to build and huge numbers of people who need housing. But we’ve known all this for some time, yet we are still in the same situation – a housing crisis.

So let me start with an obvious yet uncomfortable truth - relying solely on traditional construction methods will not halt the housing crisis. This isn’t a comment on the traditional product or its processes, more a reiteration of a well-known fact: skills capacity is also at crisis point. 

It’s a stalemate situation. In 2016, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation released a report on the relationship between housing and employment. The report found that neighbourhood investment creates a sound basis for employment, and that affordable rent provides a greater incentive for people to work.

One relies to some degree on the other. After all, a home is about so much more than bricks and mortar. So why aren’t we jumping at the chance of doing things differently to get out of this impasse?

The UK is something of an outlier when compared to many of our continental neighbours. Areas like manufacturing have seen steady productivity growth over the last twenty years, allowing more economic growth with the same or fewer number of workers. However, the UK construction sector has seen productivity flat line for the past two decades. This limits growth, and means a loss of more than £100bn a year of economic benefit.     

There are alternative products and processes we can take advantage of – but we seem to be simply dipping our toes in the water. Personally, I think we’re suffering from a lack of confidence. We need confidence in the quality of modular products (which, clearly, from our recent YouGov research, the public doesn’t have). We need confidence in the durability of MMC (modern methods of construction) products.

And we need confidence in the sector that the intention of modular suppliers is to add to capacity, not to replace traditional processes.

This is why my team are currently working with a range of modular and MMC suppliers to robustly compare and contrast a range of housing products. It’s a live research project in Gateshead that will monitor and evaluate the build process and lifestyles on offer through a range of different construction methods – including traditional. The homes will be for affordable rent and tenants will be involved in the ongoing evaluation.


So why are we doing it? If we make this research available to other developers perhaps as a sector we can make more confident and informed decisions about new construction methods.

Because while MMC is being used across the sector, we’re not using it at scale. And its scale that we need to affect change: 300,000 homes is no small number, after all. (What’s more, according to a survey by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, only 12 per cent of surveyors believe we can hit that target – another confidence boost needed).

 MMC isn’t as affected by the crisis in construction skills capacity. It’s an entirely different skillset. So it’s not about skilled tradespeople jumping ship.

You could almost envisage two different pathways into housebuilding. Studies have told us that millennials are purpose-driven, and therefore most likely to be attracted to organisations that are driven by purpose. So maybe that’s how we have to think about careers in construction.

There may be two distinct pathways being formed with two distinct skillsets – but ultimately, both are responding to the housing crisis. Perhaps that’s the draw. And having increased opportunities may well see an increase in people working in the sector overall. 

We’re not competing in a crowded marketplace. There is a desperate need for more homes. We need to embrace every construction method available to us and work collaboratively to meet the government’s targets.

Let’s keep the end goal in mind and not be restricted with the way we’ve always done things. It’s time to take a different approach.

Mark Henderson is chief executive of the housing association Home Group.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook