The NIMBY Gamble: Why Keir Starmer’s Rhetoric Could Backfire

Keir Starmer’s government has placed infrastructure and economic growth at the heart of its mission. In a political landscape where governments are under immense pressure to demonstrate competence, deliver results, and articulate a clear vision, this focus is both strategic and necessary. Britain urgently needs more housing, improved transport networks, new energy sources, and modernised public services.

I have written before about how poorly I think this government and previous administrations have communicated the sheer scale of the challenge the UK faces. I, and many of my learned colleagues, agree that infrastructure is absolutely critical to addressing this challenge. The housing crisis cannot be seen as a distant issue affecting other people or places—it is a crisis that will impact us all.

What the government can and should be doing to communicate this challenge is a discussion for another article. While the government has laudable ambition, the language being used to drive this mission forward is risky—potentially even self-defeating.

In recent speeches, and most worryingly in official government press releases, Starmer and his team have chosen to frame opposition to new developments as ‘NIMBYism’ (Not In My Backyard). In one statement, the Prime Minister explicitly committed to ‘saying no to the NIMBYs.’ This language is designed to project strength, demonstrate resolve, and show that his government will not be blocked by local opposition. However, it also introduces a dangerous political and social dynamic that, in my opinion, could harden resistance rather than break it down.

This is not just a theoretical concern—there is a clear historical parallel that should serve as a warning. Many will remember when Hillary Clinton made a critical error in 2016 when she referred to many Trump supporters as ‘deplorables,’ describing them as ‘racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and irredeemable.’

Her intent was to isolate and discredit the most extreme elements of Trump’s base, not to alienate moderate voters. However, this is not how people interpret language, particularly when it comes from someone in power. Within days, many Trump supporters who had never previously identified with the term embraced it. They printed T-shirts, made memes, and rallied around the label. Rather than weakening Trump’s base, the remark strengthened it, creating a sense of shared victimhood and defiance.

Now, I accept that one could argue it was an appropriate term to describe some Trump supporters, and she did clarify that she was only referring to some of them, not all. The problem is that people are driven by their identities, and we are fiercely tribal.

What happened next was entirely predictable to those who study public behaviour and identity politics: people who had been passively supportive of Trump became actively engaged in his movement. Clinton’s choice of words had the opposite effect of what she intended. Instead of persuading undecided voters or weakening Trump’s base, she reinforced their identity and gave them a reason to fight harder.

Rather than making some Trump supporters reconsider their political allegiance, this messaging led to thousands of them proudly wearing T-shirts declaring, ‘I am a deplorable.’ Considering the additional descriptors Clinton used, this is a very strange and unusual identity for people to embrace.

Many political commentators have argued that this messaging had real ‘cut-through’—but in a negative sense. It severely damaged Clinton’s campaign, potentially beyond repair, even if it did make her appear ‘strong’ to her supporters.

While this is not a direct comparison, the underlying psychological and political mechanics are the same: when we offer up labels, particularly negative ones, people do not back down—they often double down. Starmer is playing with the same forces of tribal identity and resistance, and if he continues to call out ‘NIMBYs,’ he may find himself facing stronger opposition than before.

There are genuine NIMBYs in the world—people who oppose every project, regardless of its benefits, simply because they want no change in their surroundings. I have met these people time and time again. They exist, they are real, and they do slow down economic growth and change. These individuals will fight every infrastructure project, housing development, or energy expansion, no matter the evidence.

However, most people affected by new developments or infrastructure do not fit this extreme definition. Many have legitimate concerns about:

? Disruption to their community, such as increased traffic, noise, environmental changes, or additional pressure on public services.

? The long-term impact of construction, which can last for years before benefits are realised.

? In the most extreme cases, the loss of their home or land.

These people do not inherently oppose growth or progress, but they want to be heard and treated fairly. In most instances, their understanding of the issues (e.g., the housing crisis) or the planning process is very limited. The moment they are dismissed as NIMBYs, they may feel ignored, misrepresented, and pushed into opposition. To be blunt, many will decide: if this is what you are going to label me, then that is how I will act.

This is the key danger: by broadly applying the term ‘NIMBY,’ Starmer risks transforming neutral or even persuadable communities into active opponents. If people feel they are being unfairly grouped into an obstructive category, they will respond with defiance—just as Trump supporters did when called ‘deplorables.’

This is not a trivial concern. Public opposition can take many forms:

? Legal challenges that delay or block projects.

? Political resistance from local MPs and councils, who respond to pressure from their communities.

? Social movements and media campaigns, which can turn sentiment against infrastructure projects.

The government must recognise that language is not just rhetoric—it shapes behaviour.

Finally, even if Starmer takes on board my suggestions above, there are larger, immovable obstacles in his path. The state of our economy is, in part, what limits our ability to borrow and invest in new infrastructure and housing.

He also failed to mention the sheer volume of housing, development, and infrastructure projects that are subject to local politics—particularly permitted development schemes. The reality of annual elections and political instability in local government means local politicians often make short-term decisions based on the views of a small but vocal minority.

This act of self-preservation, repeated daily across the country, is not due to NIMBYism as such—it is a political reality created by the system in place and the nature of the politicians we elect.

I would go further and argue that the political system itself fuels NIMBYism. Local politicians—especially those in marginal seats or councils with narrow majorities—actively seek out and encourage objections to projects they can then also oppose.

How many of us have sat in meetings where a local politician has said something to the effect of: ‘I have to be seen to object to this’?

This is the true challenge facing Starmer—not just planning reform, but political incentives that encourage obstruction rather than delivery.

Keir Starmer is absolutely right to prioritise infrastructure and growth. The UK needs housing, transport, and energy investment—and the government must find ways to overcome unnecessary delays.

However, the language used to achieve these goals matters. If Starmer continues to paint all opposition as ‘NIMBYism,’ he risks alienating communities, radicalising resistance, and slowing down the very progress he wants to accelerate.

A better approach would be to:

? Talk positively and be bold about the need for change and the Governments ambition to deliver that change

? Be clear about the benefits and disbenefits to the communities associated with a project of proposal

? Openly acknowledge that some concerns are legitimate—and show that the government is listening.

? Use language that persuades rather than provokes.

? Evidence the way you have listened and how views opinions and concerns have or have no influenced your decision making

Infrastructure delivery is not just about policy—it is about persuasion. If Starmer wants to get things built, he must bring people along, not push them away.

The lesson from Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ mistake is clear:

? Language shapes identity.

? Identity shapes behaviour and the tribes we align with.

? Once people feel attacked, they do not back down—they fight harder.

Starmer must choose his words carefully—or risk turning infrastructure delivery from an economic silver bullet into a political battle he may not win.

About the Author

I am Tom Hacker, Head of Planning and Engagement at Ardent, leading consultation, stakeholder management, and engagement strategies for major infrastructure projects across the UK and Ireland. My work spans transport, energy, utilities, and regeneration, helping to navigate complex planning landscapes, engage communities effectively, and deliver nationally significant projects.

I am passionate about ensuring infrastructure is not just built, but built with people in mind—through clear communication, meaningful consultation, and engagement that brings communities along rather than pushing them away.