One thing they’re not shoulder to shoulder on …

One thing they're not shoulder to shoulder on ...

“I appreciate being with the homebuilders from all across the country – it’s a good way to spend a Saturday morning,” said the lovestruck president to his adoring audience. “You are leading the economic recovery. You represent the great entrepreneurial spirit of America … You know, my grandfather built a house in this city?”

“Four more years! Four more years!” replied the National Association of Home Builders, gathered at the Great Columbus Convention Centre in Columbus, Ohio, at the beginning of this month to listen to George W Bush’s views on the noble mission to create democracy in Iraq, the resurgent economy, and why he should be re-elected.

Ten days later, another political leader facing impending re-election walked to a podium to deliver his thoughts on housebuilding. There was no folksy downhome Texan charm here, though; Tony Blair was at the University of London to give the industry a bit of a talking-to.

He called for the housebuilders to do more to meet the government’s targets for housing supply in the South-east. Deputy prime minister John Prescott and housing minister Keith Hill have also made speeches this autumn urging the industry to build these houses more cheaply.

When you have regulations that send confusing signals, it's time to reduce those regulations

President George W Bush

These calls for housebuilders to raise their game were particularly hurtful for the British industry, as they coincided with a European Union directive that calls on developers to follow EU procurement rules on social housing projects, and proposed changes to PPG3 that would give local authorities powers to dictate the size, type and affordability of developments containing more than 15 dwellings.

Then, for good measure, they got a rap on the knuckles for the quality of their design by government watchdog CABE. Given such pressure, Blair is unlikely to be given a warm, American-style welcome from any HBF members he may address in the run-up to next year’s general election.

Of course the situations are not exactly comparable: for one thing, planning policy is not set by the federal government, and the NAHB is an altogether more muscular body that the HBF – it has a membership of 215,000, compared with our federation’s 400 – so it wields considerable power to lobby for the interests of American housebuilders. An NAHB spokesperson stresses that the body, despite the chants in support of Bush, is politically bipartisan. “It’s true that our traditional allies on a lot of issues such as taxes and regulation are the Republicans,” she says. “But on issues such as affordable housing and housing programmes, our allies have been the Democrats.” The body launched an advertising campaign aimed at both the Democratic and Republican conventions over the summer in its drive to elevate housing as “a national priority” – and of the two former presidents of the NAHB, one was a “fervent” Republican whereas the other was a Democrat.

That said, there are many similarities between Bush and Blair, which were brought out by the content of the president’s speech to the NAHB. Bush is on a Thatcherite mission to increase home ownership and has set ambitious target for the supply of affordable and key-worker housing (see “Over here and over there”, above). This is set against his presidential opponent, John Kerry, who is advocating the provision of decent and affordable rental housing for low-paid workers.

The way Bush is pitching his plans to the housing industry in the States would leave housebuilders this side of the pond purring. As well as setting out tax credits and breaks for housebuilders to build low-cost housing, and encouraging more low-income Americans to take out a mortgage, Bush reckons reducing government regulation would cut 35% from the cost of new homes. “I understand there’s a need for sensible regulation, but when you have overlapping regulations that send confusing signals, when you have the federal government, the state government, the local governments creating obstacles for homebuilding, it is time to reduce those regulations.” Given the opportunity, perhaps Britain’s housebuilders would vote to formalise their country’s status as the 51st state?