Why Cameron called it right

Ignore today's headlines, the PM was right to take on his backbenchers over Europe.

Today's headlines are predictably terrible for David Cameron. "Bloody nose for Cameron", "80 Tories humble Cameron" and so on. Most of the left and the right, albeit for different reasons, believe that the Prime Minister blundered badly by imposing a three-line whip on Conservative backbenchers. Even if it is erroneous to compare last night's vote with the Maastricht rebellion, which was over government legislation, this was still the largest ever Conservative rebellion over Europe.

But for several reasons it was Cameron, not his critics, who called this one right. For a start, the likely consequence of allowing a free vote would have been an even larger rebellion. As John Rentoul noted yesterday, the number of rebels could have exceeded 120, a majority of Tory backbenchers. Today's headlines would have been even worse for the PM.

By refusing to vote in favour of an EU referendum, Cameron has also demonstrated that he has a better grasp of public opinion than his right-wing opponents. British voters might be the most eurosceptic in the EU (54 per cent believe that the UK has "not benefited" from its membership of the EU, more than in any other country) but they are not obsessed with the subject.

Polling by Ipsos-MORI shows that less than half a per cent of voters believe that Europe is the most important issue facing Britain today. When asked to select "other important issues" this figure rises to just 3 per cent. For this reason, Cameron was right to tell his party in 2006 that it had to stop "banging on about Europe". Voters might have shared William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith's euroscepticism but they didn't share their fixation with the subject. They were more interested in hearing how the Tories would improve the NHS than how they would repatriate employment powers from Brussels. True, 70 per cent of voters want a referendum on EU membership, but then the polls invariably show majority support for a referendum on any subject. A long debate over EU membership would have seemed eccentric at a time when there are 2.57m people unemployed and the economy is flat-lining.

Cameron should not be absolved of blame for the rebellion. He pandered to the euro fanatics in his party by withdrawing the Tories from the mainstream European People's Party and forging a sinister alliance with the nationalist right. His aloof and haughty style has alienated many backbenchers. But today my (admittedly low) admiration for him has grown. He has shown that he is prepared to adopt a position - that a referendum on EU membership is not in Britain's interests - and stick to it. It is he, not his opponents, who has demonstrated political strength.

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