The time we added the most homes was in the 1920s and 1930s, when we built at a higher rate than household formation – and prices and rents barely moved.
Another sensible public spending saving would be a complete switch to unitary authorities – which would also be less confusing for voters.
Set someone the task of calling all your members and activists and asking them what they can do to help.
I would recommend that before going to a door, activists review the turnout record of the electors they are about to speak to.
The “knock on every door” approach is flawed. Given scarce resources, it is more effective to target those where there is a reasonable chance they will vote.
It allows you to target by demographic as well as geography. Also to gather email addresses and phone numbers in a fully GDPR compliant way.
Our volunteers’ time is precious. So is that of the electorate. We need to make it quick and easy to respond to surveys.
I recently ran an online petition about an unpopular housing development, securing over 600 responses and gathering more than 400 voting intentions.
We could see a revitalisation of smaller towns as people spend more of their time – and more of their money there.
I have been seeking support for businesses which moved into new premises and are not on the Rating List – so are not eligible for support.
Bold plans could see 100,000 extra properties. It would also mean an improved quality of housing for existing tenants.
The Council is unpopular for approving tower blocks with no affordable homes and also for punishing motorists in a way that has cut trade for local shops.
A quick and modest change in the regulations would allow local authorities to build more on their own land.
Including: the Party’s procedure for sitting MPs with “incumbency rights”. Which other Conservative-held seats prospective candidates might apply for. And the potential for selection contests between seatless MPs and new candidates.