Why the Lib Dems are confident they can win the Eastleigh by-election

Lib Dem activists point out that the party has gained seats in recent local elections.

Conservative MPs are already talking up their party's chances in the Eastleigh by-election triggered by Chris Huhne's resignation, with one, Alec Shelbrooke, describing it as "an early opportunity to exact revenge on the Lib Dems over boundaries". The Tories have no intention of going easy on their coalition partner; this is a must-win seat for them. 

Given how poorly the Lib Dems are polling nationally and the slimness of their majority (3,864), it's unsurprising that many expect a Tory victory. But Lib Dem activists are confident that they can hang on. They point out that the party has actually gained seats in recent local elections, increasing its majority on Eastleigh Borough Council from 34 seats to 36 in May 2012 (the Lib Dems hold 40 to the Tories' four). The Lib Dems, who plan to treat the next general election as 57 by-elections, have long argued that they will lose fewer seats than expected in 2015 because their vote is holding up in key local strongholds. The by-election will be an early test of this claim. 

It is no less of a test for the Tories, whose hopes of winning a majority in 2015 depend on them taking a  large number of seats off the Lib Dems. The party has included 20 Lib Dem MPs on its 2015 target list of 40 in the belief that they will prove easier to dislodge than their Labour counterparts. Were the list purely based on the swing required, only nine would appear. But if the Tories fail to win Eastleigh, even after the sitting MP has been forced to resign in disgrace, a Conservative majority in 2015 will begin to look impossible. 

The Liberal Democrats increased their majority on Eastleigh Borough Council from 36 seats to 38 in May 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.