Cambridge’s future discussed at UKREiiF 2026

Posted byCambridge Town OwlPosted inUncategorized

The annual property bash / industry networking event has been happening this week – with lots of sessions featuring Cambridge

I had a browse through the programme and did a search for Cambridge-related events here. A number of institutional social media feeds have been posting updates on LinkedIn.

See also this short video clip of voxpops by the CPCA on ‘getting Cambridge moving’.

It’s a huge event – and a very exclusive one too

Tickets are over £1,000 before you add the VAT. It’s not something you can accidentally rock up to. What I also spotted from their 2024 event was a thread about how poorly behaved some corporate delegates were – especially towards the staff working in the bars and restaurants on much lower pay. One thing the organisers and sponsors of UKREiiF could do is commission surveys of those workers in the local food, drinks, and leisure sectors to see what their experiences were. (Mindful that the significant boost to the economy that thousands of affluent people paid to be there brings to the city).

Those barriers to entry also make it prohibitively expensive for community campaigners and direct action protest groups to attend in any significant numbers. But then that’s no accident. Other policy areas have similar large gatherings where ministers and senior political figures are invited to be guest speakers. (In this case the Minister for Housing, Matthew Pennycook MP is scheduled for three event – one of which is an ‘invite only’). One option the Minister for Housing has is to insist that event organisers provide a meaningful number of free and very low-priced ‘community’ tickets for those who might otherwise not be able to afford to attend, and who can provide critical but constructive feedback and be willing to speak truth to power and big money. (So long as it is not me!)

As the Minister is acting in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown, he will be accompanied by civil servants. (I was one such civil servant accompanying ministers on similar visits in my housing policy days). Which means someone is there to keep a public record of any commitments – someone bound by the Civil Service Code. The loophole in the law is where ministers are not acting in a ministerial function but in party-political functions. i.e. at events where they are not accompanied by civil servants.

The most recent example featured in the media involved the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Steve Reed MP. It was covered by the highly-regarded housing journalist Vicky Spratt of The i Paper here, and by other outlets.

“Tickets were available from £45. However Labour Yimby also advertised a “corporate table with a special guest” package for an undisclosed sum, which The i Paper understands was £2,000.”

Above – Vicky Spratt for The i Paper, 31 March 2026

Mr Reed isn’t the first minister to have attended a party fundraiser for their political party like this, and probably won’t be the last either. Only a comprehensive overhaul of party funding could address this. As things stand the only way political parties can source substantial donations beyond those who a) have a strong ideological or b) familial commitment to a political party is by selling ‘access’ to senior decision makers. Perhaps one of the most controversial was David Cameron’s Leader’s Group – which had an initial access fee of £50,000 and in return for event seats next to cabinet ministers.

“So, who said what about Cambridge?”

Other than what people and organisations have posted on social media, I don’t really know. There were some vox-pops such as this on Cambridge’s transport issues, plus also a summary of those backing a new Mass Transit for Cambridge as promoted by CPCA Mayor Paul Bristow as per his manifesto. But ultimately the power resides inside HM Treasury which will decide whether we get one or not.

“Yesterday I chaired two panel sessions focused on keeping Oxford and Cambridge competitive. The recurring questions were simple: what next — and how do we actually make it happen?”

Above – Amber Morley of British Land. LI 20 May 2026

A reasonable question from Ms Morley. She continues:

” The discussion [at the Delivering Europe’s Most Competitive Innovation City” session] was really valuable and served as a reminder that ambition alone is not enough, with serious delivery on housing, infrastructure and space needed if Cambridge is to become a model for other European cities.”

The problem is business and industrial sectors – and academia as well, have refrained from making the case for overhauling how our towns and cities are governed – and what taxation powers democratically accountable local and regional authorities should have. It’s in the Too Difficult Box for everyone. Which is why (as I found out in my civil service days) industry lobbyists prefer targeting ministers and their civil servants rather than local government.

Cambridge’s governance model is broken. Rather than becoming ‘a model for other European cities’ Cambridge and other English cities should be looking to the rest of Europe (for example Germany or Sweden) to see how their system of central-local relationships works. One that enables them to have efficient and popular trams and light rail systems.

Broken local taxation systems again

A reminder that the system of local taxation in England means that it’s not local councils that decide business rates, but ministers. And that that means collating the receipts collected by councils and redistributing them more equitably. Understandable when you compare Cambridge’s economy to places like Wisbech in North Cambs, or Great Yarmouth on the East Coast. The problem for places like Cambridge is that £100million per year is extracted from local businesses and redistributed elsewhere, with businesses wondering why they get so little in return.

Above – Cllr Mike Davey at Cambridge Guildhall, 06 Dec 2023

Which is why there have been repeated calls for the business rates system to be overhauled or abolished. What would Cambridge be like if local councils were able to spend all of the receipts it collected? At the same time, there would be a big hole in the finances of other councils that central government would need to fill. It’s a problem that won’t be solved anytime soon.

If those interested in the growth of Cambridge want to get to the root of the problems our city and economic sub-region faces, having meaningful conversations with local politicians, community groups and civic society generally about how we could be governed and how local public services should be better funded, would be a good start. Otherwise everyone involved will go round-and-round in circles waiting for The Treasury to decide how much it wants to hand out and when.

That’s no model for other European cities to follow. And it certainly is not a model that is working for Cambridge.

If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to: