Must we kill the newts?

Where ‘Build, Baby, Build’ went wrong

Today on Arguably, David explains why Yimbyism needs a reset. Become a paid subscriber or sign up for a seven-day free trial to read it.

(Lauren Suryanata/Shutterstock)

When the Prime Minister (Keir Starmer, that is) stood up and declared he was a Yimby, it felt as if the guy who sings at your local pub’s open-mic night had suddenly topped the charts. For those of us who have spent years in niche pro-housing circles on Twitter, or facing down anti-development committees in local councils, Labour’s embrace of Yimbyism felt like a vindication and a victory.

Starmer vowed to “back the builders, not the blockers”, and put building at the heart of Labour’s policy agenda: namely, 1.5 million new homes in England before the next election.

Nearly two years later, however, England has built fewer than 300,000. At this rate, we are set to miss the target by about 30%. The government’s flagship Planning & Infrastructure Act was watered down by amendments from its own backbenches. Rather than being a unifying political agenda for Labour, Yimbyism became another dividing line.

What went wrong?

While some blame undoubtedly lies with politicians, and the many vested interests which seek to prevent planning reform, the unfortunate truth is that Yimbys have often been their own worst enemy. As a self-described Yimby who is convinced that building more homes is just about the best thing we can do for Britain, this is deeply frustrating.