vibrant at an outground. The dry English summer has helped, too: for the first time, bad weather has not caused a single One-Day Cup group game to be abandoned. Taking cricket to the shires is an old tradition that had withered. Across England and Wales 51 outgrounds hosted (longer-form) County Championship games in 1965, but just nine did so in 2018, as schedules shrank and the demands of professional cricket grew. Many outgrounds lack modern facilities. Lancashire have responded with AO Farington, a purpose- built, 5,000-capacity second home which opened this summer. For players, the One-Day Cup can be a stepping stone to The Hundred and riches beyond. For a lucky few, the road to winter suntans in Dubai and Durban could pass through Gosforth and Grantham. On August 11th Rocky Flintoff, the 18-year-old son of a former England star, Andrew “Freddie” Flintoff, smashed a 65-ball century for Lancashire against Somerset. He will surely be upgraded to The Hundred next year, and from there, who knows. But county fans aren’t chasing a glittering future, just a sunny afternoon in a cosy ground watching cricket as they know it.■ This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com/britain/2026/08/16/the-hundreds-big-city-revolution-is- reviving-an-old-county-cricket-tradition
Two toots for England’s planning overhaul A bold supply-side reform from this Labour government? Yes, really Aug 20th 2026 KNOCKHOLT is all that is right and wrong about the Home Counties. Board the train at Charing Cross in central London, and disembark 49 minutes later in the Kentish countryside. The station inspired Edith Nesbit to write “The Railway Children”, a pastoral novel, in 1905, and the landscape has hardly changed. To the north side is a golf course; to the south, an abandoned one on which proposals to build houses have been knocked back for years. Squeeze past the brambles heavy with blackberries and nightshades; the water hazards are bone dry, and the grass on the old fairways is overgrown and coarse. Perhaps not for long. A new planning framework, published by the government on August 17th and effective immediately, takes aim at the
Knockholts: stations on busy commuter routes found across England that are surrounded by fields or only half-developed land. They may be a fine place to walk the labrador before catching the 7.58 to the City; they are also a symptom of a restrictive planning regime known around the world as a form of pigheaded economic self-harm. Taken with other recent changes, it “adds up to the most powerful, coherent and quietly revolutionary national planning policy we’ve ever had,” says Zack Simons, a barrister. A sweeping supply-side reform might seem improbable from a government characterised by dithering and interventionism. And for years, planning reform was seen as untouchable, given the backlash of homeowners and conservationists. To its credit, Labour has grasped it, reckoning on the support of its young and urban coalition. “I did expect more of a political backlash than we have seen,” says Matthew Pennycook, the low-drama minister responsible. He succeeded by pitching the changes as “common sense”, he says. “It is very hard to dispute that we should be building around train stations.” The boldest steps target stations outside existing settlements served by four trains an hour, in the most productive half of the country. There, it will be possible to build within “reasonable walking distance”, or 800 metres, at a density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare (dph), typical of new estates. (Where eight trains an hour run, a minimum of 45dph applies). Lichfields, a consultancy, reckons around 800 stations are in scope and the reform could release land for 535,000-570,000 homes. It is not perfect. Rather than attempting a more liberal American-style zoning system, the government has sought to tilt the existing system—under which local authorities balance the case for building against the potential harms—more firmly in favour of development. Accordingly, a system defined by discretionary decision-making and legal appeals will persist, says Mr Simons. Nor do the new rules automatically release land designated as “green belt” near stations, points out Paul Cheshire, a land economist. And since that land will be subject to strict housing-affordability rules, many potential sites might be economically unviable, he suggests. Mr Pennycook insists the sums add up for developers. In Knockholt, people seem resigned to more development. The golf-course development has been
unpopular with some locals, says Kate Mansfield, the landlady of the Bo- Peep, a pub built in 1548, but it may also bring new patrons. Sanjay Puri, who runs a garden-office business, says the passing traffic may bring him more trade too, even if the gardens of new homes tend to be too small for the swish outbuildings he sells. Still, “people who live in Kent like to feel that they’re separate from London,” he says, and do not want it to “become Los Angeles, where you drive for 100 miles and you’re still in the city”. Improbable as it might seem, a moment later a Spitfire thunders into view, executes a perfect barrel-roll over the golf course, and disappears behind the tree line. The land is changing; the sky will remain as Kentish as it comes. ■ This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com/britain/2026/08/20/two-toots-for-englands-planning- overhaul
Reform UK tries to get serious But Robert Jenrick’s mission to professionalise the populists is incomplete Aug 20th 2026 Robert Jenrick was once a Conservative Party minister so blandly on- message that he was cruelly nicknamed “Robert Generic”. Yet he defected to the populist-right Reform UK in January after turning into a strident critic of immigration and enthusiastic participant in Britain’s culture wars, hitting out at human-rights laws and the pro-Palestinian movement. His shift looks like a symbol of how the right has hardened since Brexit (which he opposed). Former Tory colleagues charge him with pure opportunism: Mr Jenrick left his old party after being beaten to the leadership by Kemi Badenoch, and was swiftly appointed Reform’s treasury spokesman. He is spoken of as a possible successor to the party’s leader, Nigel Farage.
In Mr Jenrick’s telling it is the Tories who have changed, not he. He points out that, in office, they raised government spending and taxes, failed to deregulate and let net migration hit record highs. He sees his role as helping Reform evolve from a party of protest—its fiscal plans at the last general election were wildly unrealistic—into an outfit ready for power. Reform is already looking somewhat more serious. A £90bn ($122bn) splurge on tax cuts has been abandoned, as have mutterings about nationalising water and energy. On August 17th Mr Jenrick laid out its most detailed and credible policy offering yet: a plan to overhaul the welfare system in order to reverse a surge in payments to those judged too sick to work, or who face extra costs because of disability or illness. Reform’s policy would cut £50bn from the benefits bill—more than a third of the total now paid to working-age adults—by limiting regular cash payments to only the neediest, pushing employers to support workers who are off sick for up to two years and blocking non-British citizens from claiming most benefits. It is the most comprehensive proposal any party has put forward to reform welfare (Labour is expected to present its own version by the end of the year). Charlotte Pickles of Re:State, a think-tank, says it is “a serious piece of work” backed by comprehensive accounting of its costs and savings. Still, the policy contains potential pitfalls. The £50bn headline figure could be eroded by changes in claimants’ behaviour: for example, foreigners who have lived in Britain for some time but not bothered to claim citizenship may do so rather than risk losing their benefits. And stripping welfare from EU nationals who have lived in Britain since before Brexit will require renegotiating a treaty with the bloc. It is hard to imagine European leaders being keen to do any favours for a Reform-led government. It would also be politically tricky to implement such sharp cuts with no transition period for those affected. Speaking to The Economist, Mr Jenrick says he is rolling out an economic policy that will present a contrast to Andy Burnham’s statism and Ms Badenoch’s free-market purism. “Reform differentiates itself from others in that it’s genuinely a workers’ party,” he claims. “It is about helping working
people, and the retired people who have worked hard their whole lives. Our policies are aimed at them—not Benefits Street or the rich in Belgravia.” He is expected to give a speech soon to make the case for a “post- Thatcherite” economy, offering cuts to business costs and regulations— including abandoning carbon-emissions targets—along with an industrial policy which protects sectors like carmaking and ceramics. Reform has so far resisted the temptation to allocate the savings from its promised spending squeeze to tax cuts. Any future tax cuts are more likely to involve reducing levies on work than previous Reform priorities such as abolishing inheritance tax, which would disproportionately benefit richer people. Mr Jenrick’s impact on his new party goes only so far, however. He is not popular with voters, says Luke Tryl of More in Common, a pollster; even Reform supporters rate him below other senior figures. The party refuses to take on some of Britain’s thorniest problems, such as the need to curb spending on pensioner benefits and challenge NIMBYs who block the building of new homes in the countryside. And while the party may be getting more sensible on some areas, it still looks shambolic. Mr Farage spent the summer fighting an unnecessary by- election to win back the seat he resigned in a fit of pique over claims (which he denies) that he has been evasive about his finances. Reform’s handful of well-known personalities can rarely resist taking rhetorical potshots at each other in public: this week Tim Montgomerie, a conservative commentator, was suspended from the party after falling out with colleagues. Just one in six voters say they believe it is the party best placed to run Britain’s economy. Mr Jenrick’s “project professional” has a long way to go.■ This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com/britain/2026/08/20/reform-uk-tries-to-get-serious