Last month Michael Gove suggested changing the law in England to allow tourist hotspots to force homeowners to seek planning permission before they can rent out holiday lets.
Planning laws aimed at preserving the character of a locality are entirely consistent with conservative principles
It didn’t go down well. Some on his own side, including hard hitters like Jacob Rees-Mogg, saw the notion of restricting homeowners’ rights as anti-commercial, anti-freedom and downright unconservative. Not surprisingly, Airbnb said it would fight the idea hard, joined by pressure groups representing those who had done well out of the Airbnb boom. A few days ago hedge-funder and big Tory donor Crispin Odey, never one to mince his words, bluntly said this showed the UK was not open for business and Gove ‘might as well be a communist.’
There is one problem: Gove is correct. His proposals are not only right but entirely consistent with conservatism. Furthermore, it is vital that the Tories press ahead with these reforms. Here’s why.
For one thing, there is no doubt that in many places housing woes are, if not caused, at least made seriously worse by the growth of unrestricted Airbnb-ing. Take, for instance, the south-west, the Isle of Wight and north Yorkshire. These are not high-wage areas. And as homeowners can make more money from visitors than locals, giving them free rein simply squeezes out residents, forcing them away. Nor is this simply a housing problem: unrestricted short-letting makes it hard for local employers to find staff, leading to more business closures, an even greater reliance on the visitor economy, and hence a kind of runaway financial greenhouse effect.
Secondly, doing something to curb this is not unconservative. True, the drearily collectivist administrations in Scotland and Wales have adopted similar measures to protect cities like Glasgow and beach resorts such as Abersoch. But this is not a reason to reject a policy. Proper planning laws aimed at preserving the character of a locality are entirely consistent with conservative principles. No doubt this is why true-blue Salcombe in Devon and St Ives in Cornwall are just as concerned about the hollowing-out of their economies as any council in Wales or Scotland. (The latter council, hardly a bastion of communism, already prevents the sale of newbuild houses to anyone not permanently resident there.)
Conservatism, after all, involves the protection of the small man, the small community and the local business. Or, as Roger Scruton put it, the promotion of oikophilia, and the guarding of familiar places and neighbourhoods from being wrecked from outside, whether the threat comes from unconstrained pollution or the unrestricted power of big money. By all means encourage residents to let out the odd spare room (something, incidentally, Gove would be happy to leave unregulated), but when it comes to large areas becoming visitor ghettoes open only to the well-heeled from outside, there is nothing unconservative about saying that if necessary property rights must give.
But quite apart from the fact that Gove’s plans are sensible abundantly justified, there is a simple practical point. Gove and Rishi are being carefully watched, particularly after the debacle in the local polls last Thursday. The way they deal with this controversy is vital to the Tories’ public image.
They have a choice. On one side is an insouciant, hands-off, David Cameron-style approach. Dubbed ‘Britain open for business’, it has all too often meant something rather different: a government frankly more interested in wooing international capital than looking after local interests. This approach has allowed almost any UK asset – however vital it is to the economy, employment or society – to be sold to the highest bidder. The other way is the Boris approach, which was supremely successful in 2019 – with the government concerned with the problems of local industries, from fishing in Cornwall to declining heavy industry in County Durham, and having at least a nominal willingness to deal with them.
There can be no doubt which way Rishi needs to jump. He needs to say, very publicly, that however pro-business he may be, the interests of those who elected his government come first. While he supports business against the imposition of unnecessary burdens, when push comes to shove his job is to stand up for the ordinary family in Devon, Cornwall or Yorkshire and leave mega-businesses to look after themselves. If this means a Britain slightly less open for business, so be it.
If he does this, he has the chance to begin rebuilding the Tory party. If he chooses instead to dance to the tune of a mega-multinational from San Francisco, pressure groups with a large axe to grind, and a hedge fund manager and large donor, he will merely cement the caricature of the Tory party as a shill for big business, big money and those who have done well for themselves. Choose this, and he will deserve any fate a fed-up electorate chooses to throw at him.
Comments