Nick Clegg at the launch of the Liberal Democrat European election campaign in Colchester last week. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Who will win the first-time vote in 2015?

Labour has a 16-point lead over the Tories, with the Lib Dems in fifth place behind Ukip and the Greens. 

At the general election, a year tomorrow, there will be 3.3 million young people (some of whom were not born when Tony Blair became prime minister) eligible to vote for the first time. In what one Labour strategist recently told me would be a "bloody close" contest, they have the potential to play a decisive role. But a new poll by British Future shows that 59 per cent aren't planning to vote at all. This compares to 40 per cent of all voters and 25 per cent of the over-65s (the most likely group to turn out). 

Among the 41 per cent of 17-21-year-olds who are certain to take part, there is more grim news for the Lib Dems. Labour is on first place on 41 per cent, followed by the Tories on 25 per cent, Ukip on 12 per cent and the Greens on 9 per cent, with Nick Clegg's party trailing in fifth place on just 5 per cent. Nearly four years after the Lib Dems broke their pre-election promise not to vote in favour of increasing tuition fees, the damage endures. The news is all the more dispiriting for the party given their traditional strength among this demographic. At the 2010 general election, 30 per cent of 18-24-year-olds voted Lib Dem, compared to 31 per cent for Labour and 30 per cent for the Tories. 

There is better news for Ed Miliband. Unlike among the electorate in general, he is rated as by far the best party leader. While 58 per cent say that David Cameron does not understand their concerns, only 46 per cent say the same of Miliband, giving him a net rating of -14, ahead of Cameron (-35), Clegg (-37) and Boris Johnson (-27). The Labour leader is also narrowly rated as the best prime minister with a score of 17 per cent, putting him ahead of Cameron (15 per cent), Johnson (15 per cent), Alan Sugar (12 per cent) , recent NS guest editor Russell Brand (12 per cent), Jeremy Clarkson (11 per cent), Nigel Farage (9 per cent) and Clegg, who is level with Jamie Oliver on 6 per cent. 

With his promise of policies to aid "Generation Rent" (including a cap on rent increases, longer tenancies and a ban on letting agent fees), of a "radical offer" on tuition fees, and of a guaranteed job for all 18-24-year-olds out of work for more than a year, Miliband has made a conscious appeal to the young as the Tories have focused on the old (promising to maintain the triple-lock on the state pension and introducing new high-interest pensioner bonds). The challenge for Labour will be ensuring that they turn out. Among those who are likely but not certain to vote, Labour's lead rises from 16 points (41-25) to 22, showing the benefits of maximising participation. If Miliband is to win in 2015, a successful voter registration drive will be crucial. 

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 Battersea power station in 2012. Initially, it promised to build 636 affordable units. This was pretty meagre, but with four developers already having failed to develop the site, it was still enough for Wandsworth council to give planning consent. By the time I wrote Up In Smoke, this had been reduced 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