Jon Tabbush explores the changing politics of housing in London.

The last several months have seen a great deal of discussion of YIMBYism (standing for ‘Yes In My Back Yard’) – a pro-housebuilding movement. With its origins in California, YIMBYism has only come to prominence in Britain relatively recently. Insufficient housing supply has long been identified as a key part of the crisis we are facing – at least since the 2004 Barker Review – but politicians have been wary of a homeowner backlash. That is slowly changing, particularly in London, where pro-housebuilding politics are at their strongest. But who are the YIMBYs? And what can they tell us about politics in the capital? 

Early in the 2010s, YIMBYism was often identified with the right. Think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute and the Centre for Policy Studies were the most visible supporters of planning liberalisation in the media. And in practice, organisations like Policy Exchange had a clear influence on the radical planning reforms proposed by Secretary of State Robert Jenrick in 2020. Those reforms failed in the face of opposition from Tory backbenchers – their defeat was a watershed moment.  

But outright homeownership has become one of the key determinants of support for the Conservative Party in an otherwise unfriendly electorate. That’s why many assume that outer London Conservative MPs opposed to development are electorally threatened by the increasing ‘urbanisation’ of their constituencies. The more renters and precarious mortgage-holders that move outwards from inner London, the more unstable their position.  

The movement is now most influential on the centre left. Keir Starmer identified himself as a YIMBY last year and has made planning reform – backing ‘the builders, not the blockers’ – a cornerstone of his economic platform. The movements on the left and right are not identical – left-YIMBYism has a greater focus on social housing and is warier of liberalising space standards and other such regulations. But housebuilding is increasingly fertile territory for centre-left politicians looking for a narrative of national renewal. This is particularly the case in the capital – a number of loudly pro-housing parliamentary candidates have been selected for London seats in recent months. 

Some of this is driven by the simple scale of the crisis – in the capital, rough sleeping is at its highest levels for a decade, rents have risen nearly 5 times faster than overall inflation, and house prices are now more than 13 times average incomes. At a time when public finances are strained, politicians hope that permitting more private housebuilding could help to mitigate these social crises and generate economic growth without major public spending. 

But most importantly, newly YIMBY politicians on the centre-left are responding to voter demand. We polled Londoners several times before the mayoral election with our partners, Savanta, and an overwhelming 61% told us they would support new housing in their local area.  

Sadiq Khan promised to protect London’s Green Belt from new development in his past two manifestos. But in 2024, a majority of Londoners support building on small areas of low-quality Green Belt land near transport hubs, rising to more than 60% of those who planned to vote for him in the mayoral election. It’s no surprise therefore, that this year, he made no mention of the Green Belt and promised new Mayoral Development Corporations, opening the door to partnering with a Labour government on new developments around the city’s outskirts.  

Partisan identity is vital here. Where only 54% of Londoners who intended to vote for Susan Hall backed new development in their area, a whopping 75% of Khan voters did, along with 72% of Liberal Democrats. There is no demographic in our dataset with stronger support for new housing than Khan supporters.  

But that doesn’t mean our preconceptions about housebuilding are right. The traditional narrative is that older ‘NIMBYs’ oppose new housing, while young, struggling renters support anything that might help them get on the housing ladder. In fact, 18–24-year-old Londoners are only as likely as respondents over 65 to support new development near them – it’s 35-44-year-olds that are most radically pro-housing. Gen Z voters are notably less positive about everything from development in their area, to new social housing, to building on the green belt.  

What’s fascinating is that supporting new development doesn’t mean Londoners think the changes to the buildings and public spaces in their area in recent years have benefitted them. 52% say they haven’t, with renters more opposed than homeowners. So, although people want to see more housing, they aren’t thrilled with the development they have seen so far. 

The answer to ‘who are the YIMBYs?’ isn’t simple. They encompass a majority of Londoners, but are particularly strong among millennials and those intending to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat. They are weak among voters who say they don’t pay much attention to politics and supporters of non-mainstream parties, like Reform UK. If, as is widely thought, Conservative national policy is increasingly focused on retaining the votes of older voters tempted by Reform, that could explain why Susan Hall shied away from housing issues in the mayoral race. 

But there are clear routes to converting sceptics on the left and right. Londoners prioritise combining new public services with new homes – 72% say that new GP surgeries and schools would make them more supportive of new development. Public transport investment and a high proportion of affordable homes are also key vote-winners. The throughline is that new development needs to noticeably improve people’s lives if they are to be converted to the pro-housing cause.  

But it’s worth noting that though these material considerations are key for Londoners, good design that complements the local area is almost as important to people as affordable homes and new public transport. Design codes are one way to address concerns, while reducing discretionary uncertainty – mandating developers use a specified set of design features and patterns in particular areas.  

It’ll be a tall order to fund all of these demands with just developer contributions. Affordable housing and public infrastructure compete for limited Section 106 funding in many cases, so there’s a strong argument that government grant is a better way to fund social homes.  

A word of warning. Although a plurality of Londoners want to see more public spending on housing, neither new taxes nor more borrowing were popular ways to fund that increase. In fact, the single most popular solution by far was cutting overseas aid – a tiny proportion of public spending that grew at the lowest rate of any G7 country from 2010 to 2021. That is simply not a viable answer. Solving London’s housing crisis may be popular, but it will still require hard choices.