Do Liberal Reform really want Manhattan on the Gipping?

I suppose that I ought to be wary when I see Liberal Reform pushing something supported by the Adam Smith Institute, but the suggestion that individual streets should be allowed to come together to build up to six stories high ranks as one of the more challenging ones.

In theory, building taller buildings for people to live in would increase housing density in areas of high demand. It would also create, if successful, a collection of ‘concrete canyons’ which would be pretty unfriendly and dark.

But, let’s take a look at this more closely, and I’ll take as an example my old stomping ground of East Dulwich. Made up of long terraces, occasionally broken up with small paths along the sides, with small, 30 feet long gardens and a minute front garden, the footprints of each home are rather small, and not really designed for anything much more than three stories.

And yes, you could extend them all, but if we’re talking about a whole street, or even part of one, the disruption caused by building work on a large scale, or even as a series of individual projects, would be highly disruptive.

The suggestion is that the street would decide for itself, which leads one to question how that decision would be taken, what would be done in the case of conservation areas (and it never ceases to amaze me how many of those there are), and what compensation would be paid to those negatively impacted by the development, and by whom.

Yes, you can devolve power down to quite small units, but in cities, the inter-relationship between streets and the impact on shared infrastructure, means that the level of sovereignty that this implies is to some extent limited. Increased housing density, unless matched by enhanced provision for schools, surgeries and the like, not to mention roads, public transport and drainage, actually causes more problems than it solves. And don’t start me on parking, unless you believe that having a car is unnecessary (which it could be, but feels like an effective restriction on choice).

Of course, the inference is that my street, here in the Gipping Valley, could do likewise. The notion of a clutch of six storey buildings in my quiet country village is risible, but I can’t imagine that anyone would seriously suggest the idea.

I note, however, that the article linked to by Liberal Vision suggests that parishes could develop their green belt. I welcome their suggestions as to how a parish like mine, with a population of 270 and an annual precept of about £5,000 could credibly carry out such a scheme.

Housing policy should be holistic, not hot air, it should take into account the needs of a wider community, not narrow self-interest, and I’m afraid that the only people likely to benefit from this are those who already own property and would benefit from the benefits of planning gain. As for everyone else, I wouldn’t get too excited...

@liberal_reform - can you miss all four corners of a point?

I have been invited today to endorse a proposed amendment to the Party's Constitution, which reads;

In article 7.3 of the constitution, add to the end of the first sentence:

", and subject to the Leader's right to veto the inclusion of any specific policy."

What this means is that the Federal Policy Committee, which draws up the Party's manifestos for Westminster and Europe, shall retain its responsibility, subject to the right of the Leader to veto anything he or she doesn't like.

I like to think that I am not a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist - I prefer a panama for one thing - but do have some respect for the history and traditions of the Party. Policy making by ordinary Party members is one of the things that makes us different from Labour and the Conservatives, a point made abundantly clear by Lizzie Jewkes and her idea that raising the personal tax allowance to £10,000 per annum would be a liberal means of redistribution and would allow more people more control over their own lives.

This amendment would, if passed, allow a Leader to conclude - I don't think that this policy is workable, so I'll veto it, even were it to be passed overwhelmingly at a Federal Conference. And, you see, a Leader isn't always right.

I am a bit of a process geek. I favour the notion of testing ideas through the filtration of Federal Conferences and Federal Policy Committee, because there is always someone who will, if given a chance, get up and say, "I think that you'll find that the 1846 Paper Clips Act makes the proposal unworkable.". Liberal Democrats can be pedantic like that, but good policy making requires exactitude and knowledge.

Yes, a Leader has people to do research for them, but my experience of a series of Leader's Offices is that 'group-think' tends to set in sooner rather than later. Which one of them wants to be the one to say to the Leader, "You're wrong on this one, Boss."?

We are also a Party which treasures its internal democracy, the right for all of us to have a say. What impression would it give for the Party to have a passionate debate over an idea, draw its conclusion and then have that overruled by one man or woman?

I do see a logic in the way Liberal Reform are thinking. Tuition fees turned out to be a disaster, and had Nick vetoed it before the General Election, we might not have had so many problems with the notion of trust. But, it wasn't about the policy, it was about what we did with the policy, about the pledge that so many of our people signed in 2010, and how we dealt with it in Government.

My apologies, ladies and gentlemen of Liberal Reform, but you do not address a misjudgement by the leadership of a political party by giving that leadership more power. And so, with regret, I must advise that I won't be supporting your constitutional amendment...