Over the last week, Sir Keir Starmer’s government has fired the starting gun on the biggest domestic fight of this parliament on his highest priority issue.
Yet it’s a battle this government is far from certain to win, and the manner in which they’ve entered combat makes ultimate success less likely.
The outcome matters to every citizen in the country but we won’t find out who has won for perhaps a year, maybe longer – such is the complexity of what’s involved to reach ministers’ stated destination.
And given this debate matters to every single viewer, we at Sky News are going to follow every twist and turn each step of the way and explain what is going on – and who is winning.
The promise, from the prime minister, is that he and his government will be “taking on the Nimbys and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation”.
In other words, the PM is promising to smash up the current system of checks and permissions for new development and infrastructure and instead change the rules to build, build, build – at a pace and on a scale that has not been seen in recent decades.
Follow our channel and never miss an update
Housing, road schemes, power stations, rail lines, infrastructure of all sorts, shapes and sizes should – if Sir Keir and his Chancellor Rachel Reeves are right – create a permanent legacy to future generations that this government leaves behind all over the UK.
Questions over assisted dying
Starmer accused of ‘pathetic bullying’ by environmental campaigner after NIMBY article
Sir Keir Starmer vows to ‘take on NIMBYs’ and halt delays for major building projects
As Donald Trump promises his citizens a “great beautiful golden age”, it suddenly feels from articles and speeches by government ministers as if those at the top of His Majesty’s government are reading from the same script.
On Wednesday, Ms Reeves becomes the face of this revolution as she promises she will unblock the tangled web that ministers think holds back building, development and growth.
Her speech will draw together several of the announcements from the last week, signal the government’s willingness to look favourably at any fresh application for a third runway from Heathrow and suggest there are no alternatives to the multi-lane concrete path she has chosen.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
After a bumpy few months, this is an agenda she is proud to be seen to own.
But this is more than about one minister or one change, and the rhetoric eye-wateringly hard to deliver.
Sir Keir has promised that “before long, you will see the difference, as new roads and railways get you to work more quickly and safely”.
Writing in the last few days, he continued: “New wind farms and nuclear plants bring down your bills and create good, well-paid jobs. New houses and towns mean affordable housing for you and your children. New grids and warehouses make running a business more profitable.”
The example of Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, whose controversial yet popular revolution in the Tees Valley saw him re-elected for a third term last year, suggests there are votes if this agenda is delivered.
We have heard this before, but governments have been unable to deliver on exactly this.
Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, then Rishi Sunak’s teams all looked in detail in how to unblock the planning system, yet abandoned the drive in the face of vested interests, green bodies and internal political opposition that proved stronger than the governments they all ran.
Sir Keir and Ms Reeves, with their majority of 163, think they can do better.
But the biggest question in politics for 2025 – one set by the prime minister himself – is are they right that they can be better than all the rest?
Three major changes needed
Sky News has been speaking to experts from across government, developers, industry, business leaders, the environment and nature movements and local campaign groups.
Those in support of the government’s drive for growth say it needs to make three major changes to help big projects get off the ground.
That means taking on three big fights: changing the laws which protect the environment, overhaul the system which forces developers to consult far and wide, and limit the ability of communities to take their objections to court.
In the last week, ministers have announced a start to tackling all three – controversial changes to allow developers to pay into a single pot to satisfy nature rules, limits to the times big projects can be taken to court and changes to the rules around consultations.
These moves have been applauded by developers and campaign groups like Britain Remade, a leading voice trying to push to get Britain building again.
But just because the announcement has happened does not mean policy has changed, the law altered and the fight won.
The legal text of the changes announced in the last week is yet to be published, with legislation not likely to get through parliament this year.
‘Deeply shocking rhetoric’
Labour MPs this week are signalling support, but as campaign groups spring up closer to the next election will they hold their nerve?
And environmental groups – waiting for the fine detail before deciding whether to back or campaign against the plans – are watching, quietly worried at the tone this government has adopted.
If they come out in force against the changes, could this government – which promised to uphold commitments to nature – like its predecessors find itself in trouble?
Already one prominent member of the green movement has signalled they are against. Becky Speight, chief executive of the RSPB, suggested that its organisation with 1.2 million members could come out against.
She objected to the hostile tone of the PM and his team, as well as the proposals themselves.
“There is some deeply shocking rhetoric coming from the UK government around planning.
“The PM claims to ‘clear a path’ for building, but this move runs the risk of bulldozing through our chances for a future where nature, people, and the economy all thrive. We know people want bold action on the climate and nature crises, which was Labour’s election platform, and these announcements have them veering wildly off course,” she wrote on social media.
“The last government’s attack on nature rightly triggered public outrage; Sir Keir and his cabinet should take heed to avoid this path reaching the same dead end. Nature needs to be at the heart of decision making.”
Her comments have been widely circulated, and will be worrying some in government.
Yet even supporters of the government’s plans suggest that confrontational tone might not be necessary since ultimately, the current nature rules are working for no-one.
Sam Richards, from Britain Remade, told me: “This does not mean watering down protections for nature. Under the current regime, we are failing to protect British species. All our key biodiversity indicators are in decline.”
Suggesting all campaigners and politicians who see themselves as pro-environment and pro-nature should support the changes, he added: “We can make it easier to build the clean energy that we need to tackle climate change.
“The homes that we need for the young people can get on the housing ladder, the transport that we need so that people see friends and family and better protect British nature at the same time.”
Read more:
Trump praises Starmer for doing ‘very good job’
Reeves to seek billions for growth from corporate pension surpluses
Exclusive Sky News poll
A government with a 163 majority should be able to push through changes, unless Labour MPs take fright at opposition escalating and the chance of it jeopardising their re-election.
Exclusive YouGov polling for Sky News suggests the public is cautious about the trade offs involved by government.
More voters think Britain’s planning system makes it too difficult to build things – 38%, compared with the 33% who think it’s too easy or about right.
However, when the question is phrased differently, 55% say it’s more important we protect the environment even if it means making things more difficult to build, compared to the 19% who want more building even if it means lower environmental standards.
This raises questions over whether the chancellor was right last week to say growth was “obviously” a higher priority for her than tackling climate change – when others in government are keen to stress the argument they have no intention of lowering standards to get things built.
Growth is this government’s top priority and unblocking the system is the most complex task facing Sir Keir’s team.
Is it a battle the PM will ultimately win?
