This live blog has now closed, you can read more on Boris Johnson’s comments about a potential ‘wage-price spiral’ here
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}This speech was yet more evidence that the prime minister and his tired government are out of ideas. You can’t solve a housing crisis with back of the envelope policies that have no realistic chance of success.
Every family deserves the security of their own home, but under the Conservatives housing has become more insecure and unaffordable. Homeownership rates have plummeted. Nearly 200,000 socially-rented homes have been sold off. The impractical proposals announced today will do nothing to fix that.
The Resolution Foundation thinktank has welcomed the fact that the housing plans announced by Boris Johnson today would address an anomaly in the benefits system. But only a small number of people are likely to benefit, it said. Lindsay Judge, a research director at the foundation, explained:
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The prime minister has identified an anomaly within our benefits system, where renters are treated significantly more generously than homeowners on identical incomes. 5.4 million renters receive help with housing costs compared to fewer than 15,000 mortgagors. This is hard to defend in principle.
His proposal is to partially address this by allowing first-time buyers on benefits to keep receiving help with housing costs after they become an owner. This will be significant in cash terms for some – a typical renter on housing benefit currently receives £112 per week in housing support.
However, the number of people affected is likely to be small given that the deposit is the main barrier to home ownership. More than four-in-five families on means-tested benefits have no savings at all and high cost of living pressures means a second change that allows benefit recipients to save into certain savings accounts without seeing their benefits cut is unlikely to lead to a surge in savings. In reality, those most likely to benefit will be receiving support from elsewhere – be that via right to buy or financial support from family members.
Keir Starmer has accused Boris Johnson of taking a “wrecking ball” to relations with Ireland and the EU. Speaking on a visit to Dublin, where he met the taoiseach (Irish PM), Micheál Martin, and the president, Michael D Higgins, Starmer said the UK should reach an agreement with the EU on changes to the Northern Ireland protocol instead of pushing ahead with legislation to allow it to be changed unilaterally. (See 4.05pm.) Starmer said:
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}As someone who cares deeply about the relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom, I’m concerned about the comments that have been made.
Of course there are challenges with the protocol, but I think that we have faced much greater challenges than that in our shared history and I think we can deal with the remaining issues.
We’ve faced bigger problems than this. With good faith, statecraft and trust around the negotiating table, which is what a Labour government would bring, these problems can be overcome. But a prime minister without those attributes taking a wrecking ball to the relationship is not going to help anybody.
Trust is very important in all of this and this prime minister does not have the trust, or I fear he doesn’t have the trust, to negotiate in the way that I actually think would lead to a solution to the problems.
The Greensill scandal could happen again because the government has not changed procedures enough since it came to light, Tory peer Eric Pickles has warned. PA Media reports:
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Lord Pickles, who chairs the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba), said there is still a “deeply worrying” lack of systems for “managing conflicts” when civil servants leave government departments.
Acoba guides the government on its approach when hiring former ministers and senior civil servants, and when they leave for other jobs.
Pickles gave evidence to the public administration and constitutional affairs committee in the Commons, which was discussing standards in light of the Greensill scandal.
He told the committee: “I am not confident that something like Greensill couldn’t happen again because I don’t believe that departments have put in a system that’s robust and clear. Much of what we exposed on Greensill was that it was all on the basis of a wink and a nod and it all seemed perfectly okay.”
The Greensill scandal relates to lobbying activities on behalf of the now defunct financial services company Greensill Capital, which implicated former prime minister David Cameron.
It also involves the government’s former chief commercial officer, Bill Crothers, who began working as an adviser to Greensill Capital in 2015 while still employed in the civil service.
When asked whether his concerns about government departments’ internal processes for managing possible conflicts for civil servants who leave the service without going through Acoba had been assuaged, Lord Pickles said: “No. If anything my concerns have increased in the last year.
“Government departments are rubber stamping things that are plainly wrong, so you have to go through the process of explaining to the departments themselves that there’s a problem that they need to address. If that is happening at the very top it makes you wonder about what’s going on further below the surface.”
The long-awaited plan to “fix” problems with the post-Brexit protocol under which Northern Ireland is treated differently to Great Britain were hoped to be published today, but have been pushed into next week.
The frenzied focus of government ministers on saving Boris Johnson’s premiership means the controversial legislation to unilaterally override the protocol is likely to be published on Monday.
There will also be a summary of the legal position released, which the government says confidently will show it is not breaking international law. However, the full legal advice will not be disclosed.
It is understood the foreign secretary, Liz Truss, has no upcoming meeting or talks with senior EU figures, so the UK will pursue the plans and leave it up to Brussels to change its negotiating stance.
Given the tumult of the Brexit days, Tory MPs said they faced a “nerve-wrecking wait” for the publication of the bill. When it starts its progression through parliament it is expected to trigger a significant number of rebellions because many MPs believe it could break the deal signed by the UK and EU.
Today the senior Conservative backbencher Sir Bernard Jenkin said he voted for the withdrawal agreement “against my better judgment” and added that if the bill did not seriously improve the chances of restoring the executive in Stormont, “I will vote against it”.
Boris Johnson’s keynote policy speeches haven’t always been a triumph. At times (particularly when Johnson started banging on about olives and bananas) this one started to sound rather peculiar. But in the end it covered a lot of ground, which Johnson fleshed out a bit in his Q&A at the end.
Here is a summary and analysis of the key points. I have not covered the housing announcements much here because they have already been covered extensively in the blog earlier.
On the cost of living and the economy generally
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We can’t fix the increase in the cost of living just by increasing wages to match the surge in prices, I think it’s naturally a good thing for wages to go up as skills and productivity increase – that’s what we want to see.
But when a country faces an inflationary problem you can’t just pay more and spend more, you have to find ways of tackling the underlying causes of inflation.
If wages continue to chase the increase in prices then we risk a wage-price spiral such as this country experienced in the 1970s.
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The overall burden of taxation is now very high. Sooner or later – and I would much rather it was sooner than later – that burden must come down.
It’s an aberration, the burden of tax, caused in no small part by the fiscal meteorite of Covid.
Johnson was right about the tax burden being very high. But he was wrong to imply that this was mainly due to the pandemic. The biggest single tax increase announced recently has been the £12bn a year health and social care levy, which was introduced to fund the promise Johnson made in 2019 to reform social care.
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We need to grow and eat more of our own food in this country and it is sensible to protect British agriculture from cut-price or substandard food from overseas.
But we are also on the side of British consumers.
We do not grow many olives in this country that I’m aware of. Why do we have a tariff of 93p per kilo on Turkish olive oil? Why do we have a tariff on bananas? This is a truly amazing and versatile country, but as far as I know we don’t grow many bananas, not even in Blackpool.
Johnson did not elaborate in his speech on what he meant by this passage, and he was not asked about it in the Q&A. It is probable that he opened a window into a policy debate that is live within government. Some Brexiters think the government should unilaterally reduce tariffs on food imports to cut prices for consumers. But other ministers are argue that cutting tariffs unilaterally throws away the main bargaining chip the UK has when negotiating post-Brexit trade deals with other countries.
On housing
Other topics
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}It is time for us all to grasp the nettle of reform, and move – sensibly and responsibly – to the end of some outdated working practices.
There are fully manned ticket offices in this country that barely sell a ticket a week.
Ten years ago, as chairman of Transport for London, I moved to take advantage of new technology by closing those ticket offices on the underground.
It was initially painful and the union chiefs predicted catastrophe, but we successfully made the argument that staff were better and more productively deployed on the platforms, interacting with the public.
The time has come to do the same thing across the transport network.
The union barons will once again protest.
But the winners will be railway staff – whose industry will be placed on a much sounder long-term footing – and the fare-paying travelling public.
Adam Bienkov from Byline Times says the closure of ticket offices on the underground by Johnson as mayor of London was a breach of an election promise.
Boris Johnson boasts about closing all the ticket offices on the Tube when he was Mayor of London, against opposition from unions.
Here’s a reminder of what he promised when running for mayor. pic.twitter.com/TtdcCnrWYL
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}It cannot be right that the size of the central government has increased by 23% since 2015. There are 91,000 more officials than there were. I believe we have the best civil service in the world but, in view of the pressure now on families, we have got to find efficiencies, prune back Whitehall to the size it was only five or six years ago. I think that’s something we can achieve without harming the public services they deliver.
The civil service unions argue that one reason why more officials are needed is that Brexit has created a great deal more work for central government.
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Never mind that abandoning the Ukrainians would be morally repugnant, since they are the victims, and they have an absolute right to defend a free and independent country.
We are simply not in a position to tell them what to do …
To encourage a bad peace in Ukraine is to encourage Putin and to encourage all those around the world who believe that aggression pays.
That would be a mistake that would open the door to further conflict, further instability, further global uncertainty and therefore further economic misery.
This was seen as a rebuke to other European leaders who are more keen on finding a resolution to the war in Ukraine.
And here is the government press release with full details of the housing package announced today.
The press notice claims 2.5 million people could benefit from the right to buy proposals. It says:
.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Two and a half million tenants renting their homes from housing associations will be given the right to buy them outright, the prime minister has announced.
In a speech today, he has confirmed an extension of the popular right to buy scheme, which has made home ownership a reality for two million households since the 1980s.
Currently, tenants in council homes are eligible to buy their homes at a discounted price, up to 70% off the market value dependent on how long they have lived there. However, the scheme is less generous for those in homes owned by housing associations.
Extending the scheme could benefit up to 2.5 million tenants who would gain the right to buy, freeing them up to become homeowners, and add value and make improvements to their home as they wish. The government will work closely with the housing association sector on the design of the scheme.
But this is misleading because Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, said clearly this morning that there would be a cap on the number of homes that could be sold under this scheme. See 10.18am.
Here is the full text of Boris Johnson’s speech.
I’ll post a summary and analysis of the key points from the speech, and the Q&A, shortly.
Peter Apps from Inside Housing says Boris Johnson’s claim to have built more homes as London mayor than Sadiq Khan, his Labour successor, is misleading.
A slightly out of date (but still broadly relevant) factchecker from me on Boris Johnson's claim to be "massively outbuilding" Sadiq Khan as London mayor
TL;DR – no, he did not, if you apply any sort of fair criteriahttps://t.co/VmScwvfJcV
Johnson's claim can only stand up if you credit him with homes started by the preceding Labour government which happened to be finished on his watch, but he had no control over. If you look at the programmes he actually designed, they performed pretty badly
Since we're talking about social housing, I'd also draw particular attention to this bit: pic.twitter.com/iJFH3jaGmV
Here is my colleague Jessica Elgot’s snap story on the Boris Johnson speech.
