It’s a snip: UK must embrace GMOs in post-Brexit freedom

Help the environment, farmers and consumers by adopting GMOs as well as gene editing, says think-tank

• £1.7 billion lost to UK farming industry since 1996 due to GMO ban; globally, farmers have benefited £170 billion from GMOs between 1996 and 2018 while consumers save £18 billion per year

• 23 billion kilotons of carbon emissions reduction — the equivalent of pulling 15.3 million cars off the road — and 800 million kgs less pesticide between 1996 and 2018 because of GMOs

• 29 countries allow GMOs and the US approved 70 gene edited varieties in 2020; the UK is falling behind

The UK Government must go further with post-Brexit biotechnology plans by embracing GMOs in addition to gene editing in agriculture, a new report from the neoliberal, free market Adam Smith Institute argues. 

The Institute says that the UK could become a global leader in biotechnology if it diverged from the EU’s unscientific, “hyperprecautionary” approach towards GMOs and gene editing.

The Government has announced plans to reform gene editing regulations with respect to agriculture. The report, Splice of Life: The case for GMOs and gene editing, explains how genetic engineering allows farmers to breed crops with higher yields, thereby reducing fertilizer, water, and land, while boosting farmers’ profits and lowering food prices. 

Boris Johnson, in his first speech as prime minister in 2019, promised to “liberate the U.K.'s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti–genetic modification rules.” However, the current plans will not extend to genetically modified organisms (GMO) or animal gene editing research — which could save farmers hundreds of millions of pounds and improve animal welfare. 

Even without domestic production, the UK imports roughly $140 million worth of soy, vegetable oils and animal feed from the US annually, much of which is derived from GMO plants.

Gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR-Cas9, generally aim to change an organism's existing DNA. By contrast, GMOs are created by moving genetic material between different species. There is no scientific reason why the UK should allow gene editing while continuing to prohibit GMOs.

The author of the paper, biotechnology expert Cameron English, argues that regulation should follow a risk-based approach, based on potential harms and benefits, regardless of how an organism is developed. This argument has been accepted by DEFRA in the case of gene editing in agriculture but has not been applied to gene editing in animals or GMOs, despite compelling scientific evidence for consistency. It would mean assessing based on the end product and not the production process.

The Viscount (Matt) Ridley, Conservative peer in the House of Lords and science writer:

“The government’s sluggishness in embracing gene engineering is disappointing. This technology, in which Britain could be world-leading, provides immense benefits to farmers, consumers and the environment. Yet, as this important new report from the Adam Smith Institute highlights, gene editing will be severely hampered and GMOs will be left behind. Scientific evidence, not activist superstition, should be at the centre of policy making.

Cameron English, report author and Director of Bio-Sciences at the American Council on Science and Health, said:

“The UK’s gene editing liberalisation is an admirable step toward embracing biotech and promoting sustainable agriculture. But it is just a first step. 

“Britain could achieve much more by also allowing farmers to cultivate GMO crops. This would further reduce carbon emissions and pesticide use, while helping to feed more people at a lower cost.

“There is no reason the UK should deny itself the incredible benefits many other countries have experienced by employing this safe, sustainable technology.”

Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute said:

“The government is wasting the Brexit opportunity to become world leading in biotechnology. We have the technology to produce more with less environmental impact, boosting British farmers and providing lower prices to consumers. Yet, inexplicably, red tape will continue to entangle our innovators and producers. 

-ENDS- 

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 0758 477 8207.

Cameron English is the Director of Bio-Sciences at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a consumer advocacy group dedicated to promoting evidence-based public policy and refuting health scares. Prior to joining ACSH, Cameron was the Managing Editor at the Genetic Literacy Project.

The report ‘Splice of Life: The case for GMOs and gene editing’ will be live on the Adam Smith Institute website from 10 December at 12:01AM and is available here in advance.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

UK should become ‘Singapore-on-Thames’

Boost growth and public services by learning from Singapore’s success, says think-tank

• Singapore spends £3,500 less per person on social spending compared to UK — and yet outperforms the UK in health and education outcomes

• Singapore ranked number 1 in healthcare efficiency, UK ranked 41st

• Since the introduction of Singapore’s ‘Workfare’ scheme, the poorest 20% of households have experienced real income growth of around 40%

A new report from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) argues that the UK should become more like Singapore to boost economic growth and the quality of public services.

Singapore has achieved impressive growth and rising productivity over recent years, unlike the UK and many other developed economies. This is no small part thanks to Singapore maintaining relatively low taxes and government spending. 

The new report, Singapore-on-Thames: What the UK Can Learn From the Lion City, explains how Singapore spends less on public services without sacrificing quality. Singapore spends less per person on welfare, education and healthcare systems while achieving substantially better results by international comparative measures.

Report author and Singaporean citizen Dr Bryan Cheang explains how Singapore’s public services utilises market principles and emphasises individual responsibility, whilst maintaining equitable access.

The central innovative feature of Singapore’s social security system are Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts. This is a system of compulsory individual savings that can be used on healthcare, housing and retirement. The CPF ensures that citizens directly bear some of the cost of public services. 

Singapore’s “workfare” system encourages people to get back into work after losing a job by equipping them with necessary skills, thereby encouraging self-reliance and responsibility. Singapore’s Government also distributes substantial social security support through civil society groups, rather than central dictat, allowing for more local interventions and identification of those most in need.

Singapore rejected the British colonial legacy of the NHS-style healthcare model after independence in 1965. Singapore’s post-independence leaders not only heavily criticised the NHS model but also replaced it with a system based on market competition and choice. Singaporeans pay for healthcare costs out of their Central Provident Fund savings, providing competition and greater choice. There are also additional state top-ups for those in need.

Meanwhile, Singapore’s education system gives schools and teachers autonomy. It is largely decentralised and has a flourishing private sector which promotes competition and efficiency.

The paper concludes that the UK could improve the quality of public services, such as welfare, healthcare and education, by adopting a more market-centric, decentralised and personal responsibility model exemplified by Singapore:

• (1) Reduce state-spending and taxation to similar levels of Singapore, abolishing tariffs and quotas along with other restrictions on trade; 

• (2) Incentivise greater personal saving or insurance for unemployment, education, retirement, healthcare, and social care; by developing a UK-equivalent of Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts.

• (3) Decentralise the curriculum and encourage further academisation.

• (4) Incorporate market incentives into the delivery of welfare, health and education.

Bryan Cheang, report author and Assistant Director of the Centre for the Study of Governance & Society at King's College London, said:

“The UK is saddled by high taxes and bloated welfare bureaucracy. This strain only worsens with the pressures of Covid and the burdens on the healthcare system. Singapore presents a good lesson in fiscal responsibility and individual self-reliance, one that the UK and European countries sorely need to learn from.”

Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute said:

“Britain's policy debates are increasingly narrow, devoid of any interest in fundamental reforms to the size and scope of the state or the way public services are delivered. Singapore not only shows a different way is possible, but also, immensely successful. The Lion Nation has rapidly developed as an open, low-taxing, low-spending state. Services are less expensive and higher quality by using market-mechanisms. ”

-ENDS- 

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 0758 477 8207.

Bryan Cheang is the Assistant Director of the Centre for the Study of Governance & Society. He received his PhD and MA in Political Economy from King’s College London and is a graduate of the National University of Singapore.

The report ‘Singapore-on-Thames: What the UK Can Learn From the Lion City’ will be live on the Adam Smith Institute website from Thursday, 2nd December at 10:00PM and is available here in advance.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

A Churchillian Solution for the Covid Debt

Government could use tried-and-tested ‘consols’ to manage colossal Covid overspend

• Covid borrowing has led to record peacetime debt totalling £2.2 trillion

• Emergency Covid spending should be separated from normal public finances

• ‘Consols’—effectively bonds with no fixed repayment date—are the best instrument for this task

• Consols give flexibility on when to repay Covid debt and lock in ultra-low interest rates

A new report from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) calls on the Government to finance debt accrued from Covid-related spending in the same way as Britain has done for past wars.

Pandemics, much like wars, are one of few occasions where massive extra government spending is justified: even among those who ascribe to free market economics. However, it is an inescapable fact that the government has borrowed over half a trillion pounds—equivalent to around £20,000 per household—to tackle the Covid emergency.

Report authors ASI director Dr. Eamonn Butler and Senior Fellow Gabriel Stein make the case for converting Covid expenditure into ‘consols’ (consolidated annuities)—government securities without a fixed repayment date. 

These instruments were first used in Britain in 1751 to pay for the War of Austrian Succession, and were used again to finance the Napoleonic Wars, and by Winston Churchill in 1927 to refinance World War I debt.

The new report, I Owe You: A Churchillian Solution for the Covid Debt, argues that using consols to finance Covid spending would guarantee manageable debt costs and provide future governments with flexibility on when to repay our Covid debts: ideally at a point when the economy is stronger. 

It is vital that governments recognise consols should only be used in exceptional circumstances. The report suggests distinguishing them from normal borrowing by calling them ‘Covid Emergency Bonds’ and pledging to pay them off as soon as economic circumstances permit: for example, when Covid debt has reached a certain proportion of GDP.

Dr. Eamonn Butler, report co-author and Director of the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“We need to clear the one-off Covid debt out of the way so that the government can focus on—and then fix—its long-term overspending problem. Past generations found a good way to park once-in a century borrowing for wars and emergencies. We can do the same.”

Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute said:

“A once in a century pandemic calls for a once in a century approach to government debt. Covid Emergency Bonds have the power to lock in low interest rates while providing greater flexibility to future governments with respect to repayment dates. They’re really a no-brainer in the face of our mounting public debt.”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Daniel Pryor, daniel@adamsmith.org | 07584778207.

The report ‘I Owe You: A Churchillian Solution for the Covid Debt’ is now live on the Adam Smith Institute website and can be found here.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Spendy Sunak: The ASI responds to Budget 2021

In response to Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s 2021 Budget, the Adam Smith Institute’s Head of Programmes Daniel Pryor said:

This high-tax, big-spending budget is largely bankrupt of inspired policy. 

The Conservatives seem to be out of new ideas, instead sticking to the tired old ‘tax and spend’ playbook. Where they see a problem, they reach for your wallet. Housing crisis? Tax developers while watering down planning reform. Social care? Hike up taxes and ignore the red tape. 

The Chancellor says he wants a more innovative, high productivity economy but is increasing corporate tax rates that will discourage investment. He says that he wants work to pay but is increasing National Insurance. The new fiscal rules at least signal some interest in controlling public spending, though are conveniently the same metrics the Government is already on track to meet.

There are welcome reforms to tackle increases in the cost of living and working, including on the Universal Credit taper rate, reductions in duties on alcohol, and business rates reform. All of these will help the worst off in society and the hardest hit industries following the pandemic. At the same time, we’ll need cheaper pints to cope with the rest of our eye watering tax burden.

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 07584778207.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Global minimum tax could cost Britain billions

Minimum global corporate tax will undermine sovereignty and key Government policies

• £7 billion annual tax revenue could be lost because of global minimum tax

• Super-deduction and free ports incompatible with global minimum tax

• Corporate tax most damaging to entrepreneurship, productivity & economic growth

Conservative MPs are raising concerns that the proposed global minimum tax will undermine national sovereignty and economic growth.

It comes as a new report from the Adam Smith Institute finds that the minimum tax could cost £7 billion in lost tax revenues because of the relocation of companies. The report also spotlights the risk of the proposals being rejected by the United States Congress, resulting in an uneven global playing field.

Chancellor Rishi Sunnak will deliver the budget tomorrow and President Joe Biden will push the minimum tax at the G20 in Rome on the weekend.

The ASI has also said that the proposals are incompatible with key UK Government policies, including the super-deduction, free ports and the patent box.

The new report, Draining Our Pockets: How the global tax cartel could cost Britons billions, analyses the OECD’s Pillar One and Pillar Two proposed tax treaties that 136 countries have agreed to negotiate: 

• Pillar One would create a new tax on profits above 10% for companies with an annual revenue of over €20 billion, thus changing the recipient country for some of the taxes on profits of the world’s largest multinational companies.

• Pillar Two would introduce a global minimum tax of 15% on multinational companies with annual revenues of over €750 million, to avoid jurisdictions competing with lower taxes.

The minimum tax is meant to prevent a ‘race to the bottom’ in tax rates. But, according to the report, tax revenues have risen along with falling corporation tax rates in recent decades. In the UK revenues from corporation tax increased even as the rate was decreased from 30% in 2000 to 19% in 2017. 

Corporate taxes, economic analysis has consistently found, are the most damaging major tax to economic growth because they significantly reduce investment and entrepreneurial activity. The minimum tax, according to the ASI report, would undermine national sovereignty by locking the UK into a model of corporate taxes and reduce future policy flexibility

The report recommends, if the proposals are not to be abandoned entirely, a series of changes to the tax design:

1. Set the global minimum effective tax rate in proportion to the current global average effective tax rate, and at a lower rate, such as 10% rather then 15%;

2. Permit full expensing of capital in the global minimum tax rate to enable ‘super-deduction’ and freeports;

3. Calculate the minimum tax at an entity level (‘global blending’ in OECD-speak) rather than at each jurisdiction; and

4. Expand the definition of an excluded fund to cover all regulated entities such as private equity funds, insurance company funds, and unregulated (private) funds;

Greg Smith MP for Buckingham:

“The concept of a minimum level of taxation is absurd.  The United Kingdom must have total flexibility and sovereignty over taxation.  To lock ourselves into global minimums will end up a race to the bottom, hampering competitiveness, enterprise and growth.”

Andrew Bridgen MP for North West Leicestershire:

“While the Government’s proposals are well-intended, without adoption of the Adam Smith Institute’s sensible recommendations, the proposals as they stand would risk damaging the U.K. economy and further rewarding jurisdictions which are not implementing the measures. 

“This is unfortunately the same situation as the proposals for the U.K. to move to zero carbon. As Conservatives we should always appreciate that unfortunately we have to live in the world as it really is, not how we would like it to be.” 

Julian Morris, report author, says:

“Corporation taxes reduce investment, innovation and economic growth. Sunak understands this, which is why he introduced the super-deduction. But the global minimum tax would limit Britain’s flexibility to maintain such deductions and lower corporate tax rates.

“It would put Britain—and the world—onto a path of lower growth from which it would be difficult to escape.”

Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute:

“The global minimum tax could not only cost the Treasury billions, it would be incompatible with key Government policies such as the super-deduction and free ports. The lowering of corporate tax over the last decade has driven investment, entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. It’s crazy to give up the freedom to decide your own economic destiny. Brexit was meant to be about taking back control not sacrificing our tax-setting powers to Paris and Washington.  

-ENDS- 

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 07584778207.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Send kids to tiny schools, says think-tank

Microschools vital to help disadvantaged pupils catch-up on lost education

• ‘Microschools’ could play a key role in mitigating the damage caused to school pupils by the COVID-19 pandemic

• Cumbersome regulations and funding disparities that make it practically impossible to set up microschools in the UK should be reexamined

• The UK must embrace innovation in education if it is to boost attainment for disadvantaged students

• Competition and choice are key to driving up educational standards —  but only the rich currently have school choice

A new report from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) calls on the Government to embrace microschools to help disadvantaged students catch up on missed Covid-19 learning and increase choice in education.

Report author Sophie Sandor argues that microschools or ‘pandemic pods’— set up by parents and educators to serve around 3 to 12 students—were valuable for students and parents in many countries including the UK during the pandemic. They served those who couldn’t afford tutoring or private schools during the pandemic. 

The new report, School’s Out, argues that microschools would give students and parents more choice, explore a diverse array of education techniques and increase competition to boost quality across the sector. 

Parents across the world, including in the UK, have begun to homeschool in recent years. This reflects not just improvements in communications technology but also dissatisfaction with the poor quality state education. Many parents who homeschool or are dissatisfied by state schools would value the option of microschools, which could offer high quality professional teaching, small class sizes and a focus on core academic subjects.

However, microschools are held back by cumbersome regulations and a funding system that limits parental choice. There is no regulatory ‘halfway house’ between homeschooling and large independent schools, meaning anyone wishing to set up a microschool faces the extremely difficult task of dealing with red tape and satisfying Ofsted.

The report recommends cutting red tape on would-be microschool providers and developing a schools sandbox: modelled on the Financial Conduct Authority's regulatory sandbox, to allow entrepreneurs to experiment with a diverse array of new arrangements for schooling.

It also calls for issuing parents with a voucher for education, redeemable at any school: state, traditional private school, or new options like microschools. The voucher would be equal to the average per-pupil cost of supplying a state education and would give low-cost microschools the chance to compete with state schools on a level playing field.

Rachael Ammari, the Founder of Hove Micro-School, which was established in September 2020:

"Mainstream schools no longer suit many children’s needs and home schooling can be overwhelming or simply impractical for families. Micorschools bridge the gap by providing expert tuition adapted to each child, in smaller class sizes and a more comfortable learning environment while providing a wide range of activities. Hove Micro-School demonstrates that it is possible to build a new type of school that really puts children’s learning first."

Hannah Titley of Golden Circle Tuition Ltd. said:

“The ‘one size fits all’ approach of mainstream school doesn’t meet the needs of every child. Microschools offer a personalised, competitive, and flexible education which enables children to learn more creatively and at their own pace. Parents have reported that their children feel less anxious, more inspired, and are learning more in small groups at home.”

Sophie Sandor, report author and education activist said:

“The COVID-19-related school closures which kept children out of school for the best part of a year have done untold damage to children's education and in particular those who require school the most to enhance their chances of succeeding in life. This has not only abetted the pre-existing issues in the state education system, but put a spotlight on how government regulation thwarts common-sense responses by the education sector to unexpected events.”

Matthew Lesh, head of research at the Adam Smith Institute said:

“For far too long mediocre state schools have let down our most disadvantaged. Microschools have the ability to inject meaningful innovation and competition into the schools sector — boosting standards for those who have been left behind. All we need to do is get the state out of the way and give parents and students much greater choice.” 

-ENDS- 

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 07584778207.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

ASI welcomes New Zealand trade deal

The Adam Smith Institute has welcomed the New Zealand trade deal.  The ASI’s Head of External Affairs Morgan Schondelmeier said:

“This exhaustive trade deal will deliver huge benefits for British and Kiwi consumers and producers. We will be able to access their high quality produce including wine, lamb and honey at lower prices while New Zealanders will get more British spirits, cars and clothing. 

“This also presents a welcome opportunity for more Brits and New Zealanders to live and work across both countries, allowing for more possibilities and a more flexible labour market. It’s also welcome that UK professional qualifications like those for architects and lawyers will be recognised in New Zealand, allowing for businesses to better operate across borders. 

“This is another great step forward for Global Britain, as an independent trading nation and opens the door for more comprehensive trade deals with our other allies.”

Notes to editors: 

• ASI and CT Group polling has found that:

  • 61% of Brits want to trade more with New Zealand and just 3% want less trade, with majority support across every UK region

  • 69% of Brits believe that New Zealand has high standards of food safety and animal welfare, with majority support across every UK region

  • The strongest support for more trade with New Zealand comes from Conservative voters (77%) and Leave voters (72%) but there is also a majority among Remainers (58%) and Labour (54%) and Lib Dem (62%).

• We have also found that: 

  • 63% of Brits back a free trade deal with freer movement with New Zealand, 8% oppose,  

  • 69% of Brits support mutual recognition of qualifications of doctors, nurses and teachers, 8% oppose

• For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact our press line, john@adamsmith.org | 07584667326

• The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Boris' Blustering - ASI Responds to PM's Conservative Party Conference Speech

Commenting on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s final speech at Conservative Party Conference 2021, Adam Smith Institute Head of Research Matthew Lesh says:

“Boris’ rhetoric was bombastic but vacuous and economically illiterate. This was an agenda for levelling down to a centrally-planned, high-tax, low-productivity economy. Boris is hamstringing the labour market, raising taxes on a fragile recovery and shying away from meaningful planning reform.

“Hiking the minimum wage risks locking the most vulnerable out of a job while increasing inflationary pressures. 

“Shortages and rising prices simply cannot be blustered away with rhetoric about migrants. It’s reprehensible and wrong to claim that migrants make us poorer. There is no evidence that immigration lowers living standards for native workers. This dogwhistle shows that this Government doesn’t care about pursuing evidence-based policies. We can both control migration and allow migrants to fill skill gaps. 

“‘Levelling up’ so far consists of little more than listing regions and their local produce. Boris throws out impressive-sounding economic terms like ‘pareto improvements’ to hide the fact that he lacks policies to drive growth.”

Notes to editors: 

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact our press line, john@adamsmith.org | 07584667326

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

ASI responds to Keir Starmer's Labour Conference Speech

Today Opposition Leader Keir Starmer made his first live speech at a Labour Party conference in Brighton. In response Daniel Pryor, Head of Programmes at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“Keir Starmer’s conference speech marks the end of the Corbynista fire and brimstone era and a return to a Labour Party that wants to be electable. It’s welcome that Labour appears to be returning to an accomodation with the market economy: an acceptance that our prosperity comes from innovation not state dictats. It is particularly welcome that Labour is positioning themselves as the party of lower taxes on workers compared to the Tories — Boris should take note. 

But Labour is still a long way from offering a serious policy response to many key issues facing Brits.

The speech was a missed opportunity to outmaneuver the Tories and offer credible solutions to the issues facing young people. There was little real content on addressing the housing crisis, strengthening civil liberties, or drug policy reform. There was also a continued reliance on more spending and more government being the main solution to pressing problems—from climate change to healthcare.”

Notes to editors: 

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact our press line, john@adamsmith.org | 07584667326

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

1.6m More Tory Votes By Building Homes & Levelling Up

A new poll from C|T Local, Sir Lynton Crosby’s real estate advisory business, and the Adam Smith Institute, finds that Conservatives could achieve majority-securing electoral boost by building more homes

• 1.6 million vote boost for Conservatives building more homes in a way that levels up, securing the 2019 majority at the next general election

• 75% of those who would like to purchase a home in the next 5 years say they cannot afford to or are unsure if they can

• 71% would back housebuilding if local residents had the power to agree when they were confident it would benefit their community 

• 52% back higher national targets for house building, 18% disagree

• 60% back a ‘zoning system’ with ‘Protection,’ ‘Renewal,’ and ‘Growth’ categories, 10% oppose

• 52% support building more homes if it will reduce wealth inequality between older people and younger people

Members of Parliament (MPs) from across England and planning reform advocates have backed new research which shows how to fix the housing crisis with popular local support.

"Housebuilding is a key driver of levelling up. It’s not just about building more homes, it’s about building for sustainable local economic growth,” said Ben Everitt MP for Milton Keynes North and Chair of the APPG for Housing Market & Housing Delivery. “Houses are the hardest, slowest and most expensive part of the recipe for success, but having the right homes in the right place, at the right time will be fundamental to delivering levelling up. It’s too important to not get right."

The polling and analysis, outlined in Build Me Up, Level Up: Popular homebuilding while boosting local communities from C|T Local and the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), presents a roadmap for how to restart the stalled planning reform process by linking it closely to rejuvenating local communities.

• 67% back housebuilding if it would bring benefits to their family 

• 68% back housebuilding if it meant local services would see an improvement

• 64% back housebuilding if it would help protect their local high street

• 64% back housebuilding if it led to people living closer to better paying jobs, reducing income inequality and boosting wages

• 62% back housebuilding if it meant greater investment in local health and education services

“This powerful research demonstrates that we won’t be able to build the houses that Britain needs unless we ensure that communities benefit,” said Mark Jenkinson MP for Workington, “It starts with using new housing developments to invest in community-wide infrastructure like roads, public transport, broadband, hospitals, and schools. Turning development into a win-win for locals.”

The research indicates that the Conservatives have the most to gain from housebuilding, or to lose if they fail. 

• The Conservatives could get a 5 percentage point boost at the ballot box, the equivalent of 1.6 million people switching their vote, if they commit to building 2 million new homes. 

• If Labour made a similar housing commitment, they would receive a 4 point bounce, and there would be a 3 point decline for the Conservatives.

"Housing reform is absolutely essential if Britain's long-held dream of a property-owning democracy is going to succeed, and this research by the Adam Smith Institute shows it can, providing it's done the right way,” said John Penrose MP (Weston-super-Mare). “There are plenty of people who will support building more local homes if it helps their friends and family afford to live where they want, and if local residents control where they're built and how they look."

The research also found that it is possible to win over many ‘Nimbys’ — Not In My Back Yard opponents of local house building — by delivering local benefits from development. Nimbys can be persuaded to support more building in their area if the homebuilding leads to:

• more investment in local services;

• more young people to move out of their parents’ homes;

• more people living and working in the community;

• a reduction of the overall cost of housing in the area; and

• a reduction of the cost of rents in the area.

C|T Local and the ASI find strong support for a range of initiatives to tackle the housing crisis, including:

• 60% support a ‘zoning system’ proposed in the Government’s Planning for the Future white paper; 

• 52% support for the ‘Infrastructure Levy’ replacing affordable housing requirements

• 58% support reducing red tape to help smaller and medium-sized builders

• 75% support building on brownfield (former industrial) sites  

• 63% support allowing villages to build new homes nearby, if they choose

• 58% support automatic permission for converting offices and 48% support converting high street shops

• 58% back automatic permission for mansard extensions, just 22% disagree

• 48% support ‘street votes’, just 22% disagree

Other key findings include:

• 52% have an incorrect understanding of what the Green Belt, 14% cannot say what it is at all

• 54% of those who feel their area has improved in recent years support more homebuilding in their local community

• The polling shows that Nimbys are louder, but less electorally impactful than politicians believe. They are more likely to attend town halls and send a letter / email to their local councillor, but Yimbys are more likely to vote for a party that will build more homes locally, and they outnumber Nimby’s by more than two-to-one

C|T Local Managing Director, Gavin Stollar said:

“This research is the most explicit roadmap ever produced for both Government and the real estate sector. The public tell us how they can be persuaded to come on the (house building) journey but also, crucially, why that journey is so important and fascinatingly, why it is in all political parties' interest to deliver. Communities across the UK are there to be convinced, the question now is, are developers prepared to listen and respond and are the Government prepared to legislate to ‘get it done’?”

ASI Head of Research Matthew Lesh said:

“The future of the Conservative Party may very well depend on building enough homes. Just like Thatcher’s Right to Buy revolution created a generation of Tory voters, a big building revolution from Boris could expand the property owning democracy, a stake in society, and a grounding in place to another generation. This would be wildly electorally popular, not only among those locked out of a home, but also existing homeowners if combined with direct benefits to existing communities.”

Chair of the London Assembly Andrew Boff said:

“This important research highlights that new housing can be electorally attractive if developers demonstrate that local communities will benefit too.”

PricedOut director Anya Martin said:

"People know that our decades of failure to build enough homes have led to worsening affordability, and are fed up. Far from a nation of NIMBYs, many people actively support building more in their area. But our broken planning system privileges the tiny minority of vocal anti-housing voices, at the expense of those who need and want homes. “

Just Build Homes founder and former adviser to Boris Johnson, Alex Crowley said:

“There’s been majority support for building more homes for years. But our planning system excludes these voices and works only for the minority of existing homeowners who want to pull up the ladder behind them. This research shows there are rich electoral gains for politicians – Conservatives in particular – who position themselves on the side of renters who aspire to own. Who’s going to grab that opportunity?”

YIMBY Alliance’s John Myers said:

“It is unsurprising that giving people control and incentives makes them much more enthusiastic about building more. It is high time for the housing ministry to innovate, not least by learning from other countries and from history.”

Former Head of Housing at Policy Exchange and Senior Fellow at the ASI Ben Southwood said: 

“The British public are not anti housing, but they do have concerns about developments that they do not control, that do not benefit local people, and that harm the character of their neighbourhoods. This is why there is strong support for ‘street votes’, which would give them control and any upside, allowing sustainable and walkable development in the places with the toughest housing shortages.”

Create Streets Fellow Samuel Hughes says:

“The British public is sometimes caricatured as hostile to any new development. This research reveals a far more nuanced picture: people are open to building that complements existing character, and to building that they control and benefit from. This is shown in the overwhelming support for street votes and mansard extensions, a groundbreaking result of huge policy significance.”

Notes to editors: 

• The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world. 

  • For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact our press line,  john@adamsmith.org | 07584778207

• C|T Local is a corporate transactional and project advisory consultancy across real estate, property development and infrastructure. We advise on and understand how local, regional and national government operates and interconnects with the elected and public officials, customers, stakeholders, the media and the public.

  • For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact our press line, local@ctgroup.com | 020 7318 5770