Boris? Chaotic?

Posted by: Jules Birch

04/03/2009

Bizarre? Confused? Not fit for purpose? Premature? Mishandled? Difficult to believe?

You don’t have to be a supporter of Boris Johnson, or agree with his housing policies, to find the ministerial criticism of him yesterday a little overdone.

I’m not exactly a huge fan of his First Steps plan to extend homeownership to all households earning up to £72,000 (all basic rate taxpayers) or of his plans to shift the emphasis of funding in London from renting to shared ownership. Both are pre-credit crunch relics of our dangerous obsession with homeownership.

But I do remember him proposing both in his manifesto to become London mayor almost a year ago - and being elected on it. And powerful, independent mayors being a Labour idea.

And I also remember the government almost following suit a few weeks later by making all first-time buyers with a household income of less than £60,000 eligible for subsidy that was previously restricted to key workers.

The plans Johnson actually announced yesterday seemed in line with government policy. Allocating £93m to kickstart five stalled development sites seems sensible. And the £42m of support for London & Quadrant’s Up2You programme is not just restricted to households below the government’s £60,000 threshhold, it also offers a choice between owning, shared ownership and sub-market renting.

A beaming Boris was even pictured at the launch yesterday alongside Sir Bob Kerslake of the Homes and Communities Agency and David Montague of L&Q.

Within hours though, Margaret Beckett was telling MPs that ‘the proposals in question were not put forward for proper scrutiny and agreement in advance, which does seem a rather chaotic way to continue’ while Iain Wright was telling them that ‘his proposals about affordable accommodation seem bureaucratic, burdensome and counter-productive, and I certainly think that the £72,000 limit is not fit for purpose and is somewhat elitist’.

Meanwhile their Communities and Local Government department was saying it was ‘disappointed’ and that Johnson had acted ‘prematurely’ with the funding announcement by the HCA’s London board, which he chairs.

Could this be the same CLG department criticised today for its mishandling of HIPs and difficult to believe plans on eco towns? Two policies the CLG select committee said were ‘victims of the Department’s weaknesses in engaging and enthusing its delivery partners’?