Nick Clegg speaks during the launch of the Lib Dems' European election campaign at Colchester United's Weston Homes Community Stadium. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour's election broadcast shows it fears a Lib Dem revival

The party is determined to deny Clegg the chance to make a fresh appeal.

After yesterday's volley of attacks on the Lib Dems, Labour has continued the theme with its new party election broadcast, which depicts Nick Clegg as the "un-credible shrinking man". In the black and white film, the Lib Dem leader is shown diminishing in size as his Tory superiors overrule him and triple tuition fees, raise VAT  introduce the bedroom tax and cut taxes for millionaires.

Opinion on the broadcast's artistic merits is divided (it's not the best PEB I've seen, but far from the worst), but what about the politics? My former NS colleague Mehdi Hasan asks why Labour is bothering to attack a party that currently sits in fifth place in the European election polls. But a year away from the general election, the film is a signal that Labour recognises the importance of retaining the support of the electorally crucial group of Lib Dem defectors.

With around 25 per cent of 2010 Lib Dems currently supporting the opposition, it can't risk going soft on Clegg and handing them "permission" to return (as some already have). In addition to those seats that Labour can hope to win directly from the Lib Dems, strategists point out that in 86 of the party's 87 Tory targets, the Lib Dem vote share in 2010 was larger than the Conservative majority. In 37, it is more than twice as large. Even if Clegg's party partially recovers before 2015, Labour stands to make sweeping gains.

The Lib Dems' decision not to replace Clegg with a more left-wing figure such as Vince Cable or Tim Farron has limited the potential for the party to make a fresh appeal to the electorate. But with both coalition parties increasingly obsessed with differentation, Labour clearly recognises the potential for the Lib Dems to recover ground as May 2015 approaches. With two polls today putting them just a point ahead, they can't afford to allow Clegg the opportunity to do so.

A third of 2010 Lib Dems are undecided, with one in five considering UKIP. Which side they come down on will be crucial to determining whether Labour wins.

In his conference speech last year, Clegg memorably listed 16 "heartless" Conservative policies he had blocked. Labour's mission is to remind voters of those he has enabled (one party source ridiculed his claim to be "equidistant"). When you study the numbers, it's not hard to work out why.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.