All in all, the CWU report is a missed opportunity. The housing crisis is now so protracted that it can only be solved by a broad pro-development coalition that unites people from various ideological tribes. The opponents of housebuilding have succeeded at building such coalitions. ‘Nimbyism’ can be found on the reactionary right and on the far-left alike; indeed, in a ‘blind test’, it would be difficult to distinguish between an anti-housing article by Simon Jenkins and an anti-housing article by George Monbiot. When it comes to fighting off a housebuilding project, anti-development activists from across the political spectrum are able to put their differences aside, and fight it off together. Shaun Spiers of the anti-housing group the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) explains: “CPRE has members from across the political spectrum, from the Green Party to UKIP.”13 Indeed. In contrast, supporters of housebuilding remain hopelessly factionalized along traditional tribal lines. The CWU could have worked towards overcoming this situation, it could have tried to contribute to the building of a pro-development coalition. Hilton could have taken his arguments about supply-side reform a lot further.