Will Brown face one last rebellion?

Rebels explore the "Aznar option"

Barry Sheerman, once described as the leader of Labour's internal opposition, is at it again in the Independent today, calling for Gordon Brown to resign. He writes:

No one would wish to underrate the significant contribution that Gordon Brown has made to our nation's politics. We all understand that, at heart, he wants the very best for Britain. However, now is the time for those around him who also care about our country's future to convince him that it is time for him to make way for a new leader.

Sheerman's intervention follows that of Charles Clarke, who in a typically robust article on Wednesday declared:

All the evidence suggests that Brown's leadership reduces Labour support, that alternative leaders would improve our ratings, and that an election determined by voters' answers to the question "Do you want Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister for the next five years?" would further shrink Labour support.

The psephological case against Brown is a strong one. No prime minister has been as unpopular as him and gone on to win the subsequent election. A recent Times leader revealed that Philip Gould has told the cabinet that Labour could win only if it replaced Brown.

This said, I'm rather sceptical of polls showing that Labour would do better under almost any alternative leader. To most voters, Harriet Harman and David Miliband are mere names. They don't know enough to dislike them.

The latest idea canvassed by the rebels is the so-called "Aznar option". Under this scenario, Brown, like the former Spanish premier, would remain Prime Minister until the election but Labour would elect a new leader to fight the campaign.

Matthew Taylor, who first explored the possibility back in August, points out:

In this way the internal contest within the party for its next leader is not about foisting a new prime minister on the country, but about choosing someone about whom the voters can make up their own mind.

The main stumbling block to any rebellion remains the absence of a definitive, Heseltine-type challenger to Brown. This is something of a pity, as the narrowing of the polls may actually strengthen the case for replacing Brown. In a hung parliament, a pluralist figure such as David Miliband would be far more likely to cut a deal with Nick Clegg than the tribal Brown.

History suggests that Sheerman and Clarke aren't likely to rouse a rebellion, but I'd be surprised if large parts of the PLP aren't considering all options as we enter 2010.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

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