Tim Brown, one of our SEN Associates, recently took part in a local radio discussion in the North Midlands on the Prime Minister’s ‘new deal’ announcement. Below he has put together the key points from the session.

Invitation

The panel consisted of a district councillor, a member of the local chamber of commerce, a trade unionist and myself. I was billed, possibly misleadingly, as an ‘housing expert and academic who has written on Roosevelt’s New Deal’ (though this was a long time ago!)

Less rhetoric

There was a panel consensus that we need less rhetoric from the PM and a clear plan rather than a series of disjointed announcements and briefings. As I pointed out, our ‘new deal’ has little resemblance to Roosevelt’s plan that consisted of two new deals running in total for eight years and involving substantially greater funding (roughly ten times greater than our new deal).

For those of you interested in this comparison, there is a helpful piece in the Guardian.

Bigger picture: Be thankful for small mercies

There was a welcome for almost all of the big themes eg, investment and quicker delivery of infrastructure, transport improvements, green innovation and boosting housebuilding. But the £3.5 to £5.5bn new deal (amounts vary depending on the sources) divided by the number of local authorities in England equates to about £12m for each area. For comparison purposes, the Local Government Association’s latest estimate for the financial cost of COVID-19 pandemic for councils is over £10bn!

Nevertheless, as one of the panel commented, ‘we need to be thankful for what we receive because things would be even worse without it’.

What about housing and planning?

Again, the focus on delivering more affordable housing, supporting small housebuilders and making brownfield sites ‘shovel-ready’ was welcomed. But the devil is in the detail and the wheels quickly came off any consensus.

The councillor and the trade unionist (and I) wanted to see an emphasis on social rented housing, while the Chamber of Commerce prioritised low cost home ownership and helping small developers. As the radio presenter commented, ‘part of the problem is trying to slice up a cake that is too small’.

Further ruptures occurred over so-called planning reforms and the future of local government. In relation to the former, the Councillor wanted to see greater local control while the Chamber of Commerce supported the PM’s stance in favour of deregulation.

Government support for combined authorities, elected mayors and unitary local government was welcomed by all, apart from the Councillor from the district council for obvious reasons!

What happened to levelling-up?

Nevertheless, a consensus of disappointment emerged over the lack of any substantial measures in the ‘new deal’ to tackle the north-south divide, which is a major issue for the North Midlands as well as the North of England.

I pointed out that the UK Government in the 1930s through the Special Areas legislation (our nearest equivalent of the Roosevelt initiative) might be a framework for the way forward as it included the setting up of two large housing associations – the Scottish Special Housing association and the North Eastern Housing association (with the latter becoming a major part of the Home Group in the 1980s).

Now that would be an exciting development if the ideas were brought forward to the 2020s!