Clegg's narrow victory on the 50p tax rate shows how divided the Lib Dems are

Lib Dem delegates voted by a majority of just four (224-220) not to pledge to reintroduce the 50p rate as Clegg and Farron divided.

After his victories on nuclear power, tuition fees and 'Osbornomics', Nick Clegg's winning streak has continued. In line with the leadership's position, Lib Dem delegates have just voted not to reintroduce the 50p tax rate and to maintain the 45p rate, albeit by a margin of just four (224-220).

While party president Tim Farron had called in my interview with him for the party to back the higher rate both to raise additional revenue and to demonstrate that "we are all in it together", Clegg said this morning: "To drive home the message of tax reform I think changing one very specific symbolic tax rate is not really the key part of the matter." The key intervention in the debate came from Vince Cable, who reminded delegates that the party's previous policy was to support a 40p rate alongside a mansion tax and argued that excessively high taxes on income could have negative economic effects.

Had the party voted to back the 50p rate it would have been an unambiguous assertion of its centre-left character, but the result will be seen as an acceptance of the more economically liberal path pursued by Clegg. (Although it is worth remembering that the party previously voted to abandon support for the 50p rate under Ming Campbell's leadership in 2006.) But the narrowness of the victory shows how divided the Lib Dems remain about their ideological direction. While Orange Bookers such as David Laws and Jeremy Browne would probably like to see the top rate reduced to 40p, Farron and the party's left have demonstrated the support that exists for a more social democratic approach.

Should the Lib Dems be presented with a choice of coalition partner after the next election, with both Labour and the Tories winning enough seats to form majority governments with their support, it is these two groups that will be pitted against each other in a battle for the party's soul.

Liberal Democrat president Tim Farron, who called for the party to support the reintroduction of the 50p tax rate. 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