Grant Shapps

Honeyball’s Weekly Round-Up

Labour Party

This week was marked by George Osborne’s budget on Wednesday. Osborne announced a host of measures, which included enabling people to withdraw their pension pot more flexibly – rather than buying an annuity at retirement age. As well as this the chancellor announced the creation of a new ‘Pensioner Bond’ for over 65s, the abolition of the 10p tax rate for savers, and the halving to 10% of the tax on BINGO halls. “If you’re a maker, a doer or a saver: this Budget is for you,” Osborne announced.

The budget also included the announcement of a 1p cut on beer duty, the scrapping of a rise on fuel duty in September, reductions in long haul passenger duty, and the creation of a new, twelve-sided £1 coin – measures which were seen as populist gimmicks by many. Ed Miliband mocked the latter in his response to the chancellor, saying “It doesn’t matter if the pound is square, round or oval…You’re worse off under the Tories,” and even comedian Al Murray weighed in, pointing out that the cut on the price of beer would only have made a difference if we were living “in 1902”.

Embarrassingly for the Conservatives, they were forced to defend a mocked-up poster, tweeted by Tory Chairman Grant Shapps, which proclaimed that the government were “Cutting the BINGO tax and beer duty to help hardworking people do more of the things they enjoy.” The poster was widely ridiculed as an exemplar of Tory highhandedness, and was dismissed as “condescending” by Labour strategist Stewart Wood.

With the General Election now just over a year off most of the biggest components were aimed at the so-called ‘grey vote’, who are more likely to go to the ballot box. Sweeteners and short-term boons were offered in return for votes next May, speaking volumes of what Polly Toynbee calls a society – and, I would add, a government agenda – where “tomorrow is sacrificed for today.”

The implications of budgets are often hard to gauge, but so far 2014 is not being viewed by the media as an “omnishambles” on quite the scale of 2012. For me though, it’s a budget full of headline-friendly but terrifyingly short-term steps. Almost all of Osborne’s announcements smacked of political and economic manoeuvring. The result of the changes to pensions, for example, is likely to be a medium- to short-term spike in taxes collected for the government, as older people draw down their pensions early – something for which, as with 1980s privatisations and the selling off of council houses, the next generation is likely to find itself footing the bill. As the Telegraph economics commentator Jeremy Warner put it, Osborne is “stealing tax revenue from the future in order to pay for today’s pre-election giveaways.”

As if to underscore the point that it will be the next generation who have to cover the costs, the end of the week saw Universities Minister David Willetts refuse to rule out further increases in tuition fees. Following repeated questioning in a Channel 4 interview he would not be drawn on whether fees – which trebled to £9,000 in the early stages of this parliament – would be pushed up even further after 2015. Willetts finally admitted that they “could be,” prompting speculation that the Conservatives would push the financial burden of higher education ever-further onto the student if they stayed in office.

Young people have been very much between the crosshairs during this parliament. The Conservatives have cut EMA and plan to remove benefits for under-25s, indulging in rhetoric which scapegoats young people as “idle” at a time when, more than ever, they need the government’s support. It is vital that we re-engage the younger generation in the democratic process, so that short-term political electioneering by the Tories does not push them ever-closer to the margins.

Honeyball’s Weekly Round Up – Housing special

Labour Party

 I was concerned to learn today from reports in the Observer that London is set to become ‘unaffordable’, forcing people to move out of their homes not only in parts of central London but in the suburbs too.

Last week’s Observer revealed that inner London Councils are so fearful that they were block booking bed and breakfasts outside the capital to house thousands of poor families who could be forced to move out of their homes.

I am concerned that the government has failed to acknowledge the problem or give any indication that it has a plan in place – I am keen to hear what the Mayor will do to address this imminent problem if the plans go ahead. I expect as the highest representative of Londoners he will oppose these plans and tackle his government in the strongest terms.

Vince Cable rather smartly placed the ball firmly in the Mayors court and applied pressure to Boris Johnson to address the underlying problem of why there are escalating rental prices in London.

But this is not a party political issue to gain points over and even Boris said that he will not accept any kind of social cleansing of London – and I should hope not. Thousands of families have put down roots in London. What is he prepared to do though?

Are we going to see a ‘social cleansing’ of the capital? – Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter who commissioned the research undertaking by Cambridge University, said that the governments proposed reforms of housing benefit would change the makeup of London with no-go areas for those on local housing allowance, and if there is little opposition to these proposals I fear this is exactly what we will see.

The actual number of households which will be effected by the proposals varies and remains vague, with analysis by the mayor’s housing experts claiming it to be in the region of 9000 households and Grant Shapps (the housing minister) suggesting that just 17000 people in London will be affected by the cap.

A social cleansing of the capital would have disastrous consequences, not least because it creates a false economy and therefore any cost savings would be marginal because, as Ed Milliband pointed out, if you drive up homelessness families end up in bed and breakfasts and that costs more not less.