David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband attend a ceremony at Buckingham Palace to mark the Duke of Edinburgh's 90th birthday on June 30, 2011. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The opportunity for Cameron to avoid the TV debates is growing

The more parties, broadcasters and papers pile in, the greater the danger of a non-agreement. 

If David Cameron was confident that he would win the TV debates, he would have already signed up for them. That he is not even willing to begin negotiations until October is evidence that he is reserving the option to avoid them. By the same measure, Ed Miliband would not be pushing for an agreement if he did not believe that he would emerge the victor. 

It is the fear that the debates would advantage one or more of his opponents that explains Cameron's hesistancy. Labour figures rightly regard them as an opportunity for Miliband to speak directly to the country, unmediated by a hostile press, and as a means of countering the Tories' financial advantage. Having performed credibly against Cameron at PMQs in his three-and-a-half years as leader of the opposition, they are confident that Miliband would surpass expectations. As the papers demonise him as the most dangerous man in Britain, voters may warm to the moderate figure who wants to freeze their energy bill and build more homes. It is Cameron, as both the Tories and Labour recognise, who has the most to lose. 

The latest attempt to inject momentum into the discussions is a joint proposal by the Guardian, the Telegraph and YouTube to host an online debate. The aim is to engage young viewers for whom the internet is the main source of news and who are alienated by traditional broadcasters. It is a worthy one. But by adding a new element to the negotiations (and encouraging others to make similar proposals) it increases the possibility that Cameron will find an excuse to avoid them altogether. A Miliband source told me: "This shows why we need the talks to begin now, with 3-3-3 as our starting point." 

Both Labour and the Lib Dems regard a repeat of the format used last time - three debates between three party leaders over three weeks - as their best hope of securing an agreement. Cameron's alternative proposal of a "2-3-5" format with a head-to-head debate between himself and Miliband (before the campaign proper begins), another with the addition of Nick Clegg, and another with the addition of Nigel Farage and the Greens' Natalie Bennett is regarded with suspicion as an attempt to muddy the waters. As Labour's Michael Dugher has pointed out: "It’s nonsensical for Cameron to say he wants to start the debates early, but the negotiations late." 

The more parties, broadcasters and papers pile in, the greater the chance that Cameron will eventually announce with faux sincerity that "We tried really hard, we really did, but it just hasn't been possible to reach an agreement." 

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.