Why the UK should boycott Euro 2012 in Ukraine

Cameron should join Merkel and take a stand on political repression.

Does Roy Hodgson speak Ukrainian? The question arises as England’s new multilingual manager now faces the horror problem of all sports bureaucracy – namely whether England should play in Ukraine given the alarming reports about political repression there.

Last October, I asked David Cameron about the harsh treatment of the former Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. She had been placed on a political show trial by the current Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanokuvych, her deadly life-long rival. The charge was poor administration of the complex energy dossier from the time Ms Tymoshenko was prime minister.

The Prime Minister’s reply was robust. Cameron said “‘We completely agree that the treatment of Mrs Tymoshenko, whom I have met on previous occasions, is absolutely disgraceful. The Ukrainians need to know that if they leave the situation as it is, it will severely affect their relationship not only with the UK but with the European Union.”

So will Cameron now join other European leaders and take a stand on the ill-treatment of Ms Tymoshenko who is now suffering from severe health problems as Yanukovych regime increase pressure on her? Hillary Clinton has now expressed concern about Ms Tymoshenko’s health as well as the continuing prosecution by the Yanukovych clique of the former prime minister’s aides and associates.

Not content with winning power Yanukovich is determined to take revenge on anyone who challenged him in his years of opposition after the Orange Revolution. In Ms Tymoshenko he rightly sees a serious opponent. But the Ukrainian ruler like his friend, Vladimir Putin, whose inauguration as Russian president next Monday will be greeted by protests, refuses to abide by the normal rules of Council of Europe member states and accept that an opposition should exist as part of democratic politics. Politics is personal in Russia and Ukraine and where better to dump a political opponent than in prison.

The question for us is: will Cameron live up to his word? Will the treatment of Ms Tymosenko “severely affect” the UK-Ukraine relationship as he told the Commons six months ago? Many of his fellow centre-right leaders in Europe think so. Angela Merkel has said she will not go to the Euro 2012 contest as long as the Ukrainians continue to hold Ms Tymoshenko in prison in dire conditions. She is joined by the EU Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso and Cameron’s close political Eurosceptic ally, Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic. The presidents of Austria and Germany have also said they will boycott the Ukraine matches.

It is a problem for England as all the first round matches are being played in Ukraine even if the team themselves are going to stay in Poland for the contest. The real responsibility lies with UEFA who should threaten to relocate the matches out of Ukraine if Ms Tymoshenko is not  released and allowed to have proper medical care.

But as with the Bahrain F1 Grand Prix, the wilful blindness of sports organisers to how they can end up boosting repressive regimes should be examined. In 1938 the England football team in Germany were ordered to give the Hitler salute by the Football Association. Whatever their bleating about not getting involved in politics, the 3 Lions will be used by Yanukovich to boost his repressive regime Today, while William Hague and Cameron wallow in their (perfectly correct) denunciations of Syria they are silent on Bahrain. In China, Cameron refused to mention the name of Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace Laureate who is rotting in the Chinese gulag. At least Mrs Thatcher raised the case of Andrei Sakharov and Malcolm Rifkind when a junior FCO minister in the 1980s went to Poland and expressed support for the banned Solidarity trade union.

Today, Britain’s foreign policy has all but given up on human rights. Instead William Hague’s mercantilism -- trade above democracy and human rights -- prevails. Almost certainly the Hague mercantilist wing of the British state regret that Cameron was so forthright in his support for Yulia Tymoshenko in the Commons. But the Prime Minister should stick to his position and join Angela Merkel and other EU leaders in boycotting Euro 2012. It may be too much to ask Hodgson and Wayne Rooney to take a stand. But how wonderful if England’s political-sporting nexus could speak for freedom and decency rather than hiding behind the lie that sport and politics should not mix.

Denis MacShane is MP for Rotherham and former Europe Minister. Follow him at @denismacshane and www.denismacshane.com

A supporter of Ukrainian jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenkoshouts as she holds a picture of her during a rally in front of a court in Kiev. Photograph: Getty Images.
Denis MacShane is MP for Rotherham and was a minister at Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Getty
Show Hide image

The tale of Battersea power station shows how affordable housing is lost

Initially, the developers promised 636 affordable homes. Now, they have reduced the number to 386. 

It’s the most predictable trick in the big book of property development. A developer signs an agreement with a local council promising to provide a barely acceptable level of barely affordable housing, then slashes these commitments at the first, second and third signs of trouble. It’s happened all over the country, from Hastings to Cumbria. But it happens most often in London, and most recently of all at Battersea power station, the Thames landmark and long-time London ruin which I wrote about in my 2016 book, Up In Smoke: The Failed Dreams of Battersea Power Station. For decades, the power station was one of London’s most popular buildings but now it represents some of the most depressing aspects of the capital’s attempts at regeneration. Almost in shame, the building itself has started to disappear from view behind a curtain of ugly gold-and-glass apartments aimed squarely at the international rich. The Battersea power station development is costing around £9bn. There will be around 4,200 flats, an office for Apple and a new Tube station. But only 386 of the new flats will be considered affordable

What makes the Battersea power station development worse is the developer’s argument for why there are so few affordable homes, which runs something like this. The bottom is falling out of the luxury homes market because too many are being built, which means developers can no longer afford to build the sort of homes that people actually want. It’s yet another sign of the failure of the housing market to provide what is most needed. But it also highlights the delusion of politicians who still seem to believe that property developers are going to provide the answers to one of the most pressing problems in politics.

A Malaysian consortium acquired the power station in 2012 and initially promised to build 517 affordable units, which then rose to 636. This was pretty meagre, but with four developers having already failed to develop the site, it was enough to satisfy Wandsworth council. By the time I wrote Up In Smoke, this had been reduced back to 565 units – around 15 per cent of the total number of new flats. Now the developers want to build only 386 affordable homes – around 9 per cent of the final residential offering, which includes expensive flats bought by the likes of Sting and Bear Grylls. 

The developers say this is because of escalating costs and the technical challenges of restoring the power station – but it’s also the case that the entire Nine Elms area between Battersea and Vauxhall is experiencing a glut of similar property, which is driving down prices. They want to focus instead on paying for the new Northern Line extension that joins the power station to Kennington. The slashing of affordable housing can be done without need for a new planning application or public consultation by using a “deed of variation”. It also means Mayor Sadiq Khan can’t do much more than write to Wandsworth urging the council to reject the new scheme. There’s little chance of that. Conservative Wandsworth has been committed to a developer-led solution to the power station for three decades and in that time has perfected the art of rolling over, despite several excruciating, and occasionally hilarious, disappointments.

The Battersea power station situation also highlights the sophistry developers will use to excuse any decision. When I interviewed Rob Tincknell, the developer’s chief executive, in 2014, he boasted it was the developer’s commitment to paying for the Northern Line extension (NLE) that was allowing the already limited amount of affordable housing to be built in the first place. Without the NLE, he insisted, they would never be able to build this number of affordable units. “The important point to note is that the NLE project allows the development density in the district of Nine Elms to nearly double,” he said. “Therefore, without the NLE the density at Battersea would be about half and even if there was a higher level of affordable, say 30 per cent, it would be a percentage of a lower figure and therefore the city wouldn’t get any more affordable than they do now.”

Now the argument is reversed. Because the developer has to pay for the transport infrastructure, they can’t afford to build as much affordable housing. Smart hey?

It’s not entirely hopeless. Wandsworth may yet reject the plan, while the developers say they hope to restore the missing 250 units at the end of the build.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

This is a version of a blog post which originally appeared here.

0800 7318496