Why you won’t hear about violence against women in this week’s debate

Half of women experience violence or stalking in their lifetime. But our leaders still won't debate

Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than get breast cancer, but you can bet that Brown, Clegg and Cameron won't talk about violence against women (VAW) in the final leaders' debate this Thursday.

Staggeringly, half of women in England and Wales experience sexual assault, domestic violence or stalking in their lifetime. Based on government figures, it is estimated to cost over £40 billion a year (including the cost to public services, women's lost economic output and the human cost). Think of most policy areas and there will be a link - health, poverty, inequality, crime, the economy and so it goes on. Despite this, the issue wasn't deemed worthy of discussion in either of the first two leadership debates.

Whilst televised debates encourage soundbites, the manifestos have space to flesh out policies in more detail. So it is astonishing that the Lib Dem manifesto makes no reference to the issue, such as the funding crisis facing rape crisis centres or the need to challenge attitudes that condone violence. Clegg's star may be rising but this is a shocking omission from the party that claims to embody "change".

In their manifesto, the Conservatives promise funding for new and existing Rape Crisis Centres and to include the issue of consent in sex education. But despite having published their own strategy calling for a cross-government approach, their manifesto shows little evidence of this. For instance, how will their Big Society idea of shifting power from the centre to local areas end patchy service provision (as we have charted in our joint Map of Gaps campaign with the Equality and Human Rights Commission? What impact will tougher immigration policies have on ethnic minority women experiencing violence? Clearly, women who leave abusive husbands were not high on the agenda when the marriage tax giveaway was dreamt up.

In its manifesto Labour's recognition of the need to tackle the causes of VAW and raise awareness, not just improve the criminal justice response, is welcome. However it is disappointing that VAW is not reflected across different policy areas or linked to equality and human rights. This is despite the recent publication of a cross-government strategy, after years of campaigning by the End Violence Against Women coalition. There is no reference to the plight of women trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation, and whilst there is a commitment to women-only provision there is no plan to end the funding crisis facing women's services.

Both Labour and Conservative manifestos give a nod to restricting sexualised products marketed at children. Indeed, during the furore surrounding Primark's glittery padded bikini bras for seven year old girls, both Cameron and Brown spoke out in support of Mumsnet's Let Girls Be Girls campaign (although, as the New Statesman has pointed out, Cameron has been strangely silent about Next selling padded bras for girls, noting that its chief executive is a major Tory backer). In the Nationalists and smaller party manifestos, only Plaid Cymru and the Greens support violence against women strategies.

Dubbed the 'Mumsnet election', the parties are keenly aware that women's votes are critical - indeed, the Lib Dems' current surge in the polls is mostly down to women. And yet the absence of women (aside from the leaders' wives) in the campaign has been widely commented on. The lack of debate about women's equality is even starker. When prompted at women's sector events women politicians have fleshed out their policies. All well and good but with three white male leaders slugging it out in tv debates hosted by three white men will violence against women get the airing it deserves? Don't hold your breath.

 

Holly Dustin is manager of the End Violence Against Women coalition.

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