Osborne's Spending Review is a test for Labour too - how will it respond?

Balls and Miliband will come under ever greater pressure to say whether Labour will match the coalition's post-election spending plans.

So fractious have the negotiations over the 2015-16 Spending Review been that, at various points, some ministers have urged George Osborne not to hold one at all. But Osborne, who has scheduled the review for 26 June, was never likely to take their advice. For the Chancellor, the event is critical to the Conservatives' strategy for the 2015 general election. By setting spending limits for the first year after the election in advance, he will establish "the baseline" and challenge Labour to match it. Should it fail to do so, punishment will be swift. In a rerun of the Conservatives' 1992 campaign, Osborne will accuse Labour of planning to hit Middle England with a "tax bombshell" to fund higher spending. 

Whether or not pledge to match the coalition's spending plans, as Labour did with the Tories' in 1997, is the biggest political decision Ed Miliband and Ed Balls will take before the general election. If they accept Osborne’s baseline, the left and the trade unions will accuse them of embracing "Tory cuts" (something that, in the words of one Labour MP, “would make the row over the public-sector pay freeze look like a tea party"). If they reject it, the Chancellor will accuse them of planning billions in additional borrowing or tax rises. 

Having abandoned hope of meeting their original deficit-reduction targets, the Tories believe another election fought over austerity could yet favour them. In 2015, their pitch will be, “Yes, it’s taking longer than we thought. But who do you trust to finish the job – the government, or the ones who got us into this mess?”

A pledge by Balls to match Osborne’s spending plans would be an efficient means of closing down this line of attack. For this reason, it is an option that the shadow chancellor’s team notably refuses to rule out. As chief economic adviser to Gordon Brown, Balls helped mastermind the original 1997 pledge and has already declared that his "starting point" is that Labour will "have to keep all these cuts", a step towards accepting Osborne’s baseline. When Harriet Harman told the Spectator last September that Labour would not match the Tories’ spending plans and abandon its “fundamental economic critique” of the coalition, she was forced to issue a retraction

A promise to stick to the Tories’ baseline would not entail supporting all of the cuts proposed by Osborne; rather, Labour will need to replace any cuts that it rejects with tax rises or cuts of equivalent value. While acknowledging that it cannot avoid austerity, Labour would vow to distribute the pain more fairly, ensuring that the richest bear a greater burden. The party will likely pledge to reintroduce the 50p top rate of income tax and adopt some version of a "mansion tax" (a proposal but not yet a manifesto commitment). 

Against this, however, is the fact that signing up to the Conservatives' plans, a trick straight out of the New Labour playbook, would run entirely counter to the post-Blairite spirit of Miliband's leadership. Embracing Tory levels of austerity would also deny the economy the stimulus it so desperately needs. For these reasons, senior MPs, most notably Peter Hain, and groups such as the Fabian Society have already urged Labour to reject this course of action. 

Whichever path Balls and Miliband choose, don't expect an answer this year - or next. As today's Guardian reports, the party is likely to wait until just a few months before the general election before announcing its decision (as Blair and Brown did in 1997). This is smart policy as well as smart politics. With the economy and the public finances so volatile (borrowing has been revised up by £245bn since 2010 and growth has been around 6 per cent lower than forecast), Labour can reasonably argue that it is in no position to make a decision more than two years out from the election. Balls and Miliband have learned from the mistakes of the Tories, who pledged to match Labour's spending plans in 2007 only to abandon this pledge after the crash in 2008.

The Conservatives would like nothing more than for attention to be diverted away from their economic failure and onto Labour's plans. It is an opportunity that Balls and Miliband will rightly deny them. But as political pressure (from right and left) grows on Labour to declare its intentions, the next few months will provide the greatest test of party discipline yet. 

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at the Labour conference in Manchester last year. Photograph: Getty Images.

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