No significant shift away from Lib Dems, poll shows

There has been no mass defection of voters to Labour from the Liberal Democrats.

New Statesman - Polls Guide_1274778313293

Latest poll (ICM/Guardian): Conservatives 25 seats short of a majority.

After a record number of polls during the election campaign it all went quiet for a while. But with a few now published, some revealing trends are beginning to emerge.

The first ICM/Guardian poll since the election has been released, and shows the Conservatives on 39 per cent (+1), Labour on 32 per cent (-1) and the Liberal Democrats unchanged on 21 per cent, figures identical to those in the most recent YouGov poll.

Lib Dem support is down 3 points since the election, but that's in line with past trends and suggests no significant shift against Nick Clegg's party.

I have always been sceptical of claims that the Lib Dems' decision to enter government with the Tories would prompt a wave of defections to Labour. So it's worth noting that most voters say the coalition agreement has made no difference to their decision to support the Lib Dems and that a quarter say it will make them more likely to vote for the party.

Fifty-nine per cent of voters approve of the coalition agreement, almost exactly the joint share of voters who support the Tories and the Lib Dems, with 32 per cent opposed.

New Statesman Poll of Polls

New Statesman - Polls Guide_1274778333401

Hung parliament; Conservatives 25 seats short.

Most encouraging, as the coalition prepares to announce plans for a referendum on the Alternative Vote, is the strong public support for electoral reform, giving the lie to the canard that this is an elite interest. Fifty-six per cent of voters are in favour of a more proportional system, with 38 per cent opposed.

There is even a significant minority of Conservatives -- 45 per cent -- in favour of reform, with 49 per cent supporting retention of first-past-the-post.

I'm not expecting to see a Tories for Electoral Reform group start up any time soon, but it is heartening to know that David Cameron's claim that reform would hand more power to the "political elites" has been ignored by at least some of his own voters.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

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