PMQs review: an unhappy return for Cameron

An irritable PM failed to land any significant blows on Ed Miliband.

The first PMQs of the new parliamentary term was not one that David Cameron will want to remember. From the start, he was tetchy, irritable and, as a result, largely unpersuasive. Rather than attacking the reshuffle as a "shift to the right", Ed Miliband chose to brand it the "no change reshuffle", highlighting the PM's failure to move George Osborne.

In response, Cameron declared: "I don't want to move my Chancellor, he can't move his shadow chancellor." Given Osborne's status as the most unpopular member of the cabinet, it was an odd boast. Earlier, referring to a report by the Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce that Miliband "is the the one who always buys coffee for Balls", Cameron sarcastically remarked that it showed how "assertive and butch" the Labour leader was. It was an odd jibe that pandered to his reputation as a bully and, at a time when the country is in recession, showed a lack of seriousness.

On the economy, Cameron pointed out that private sector employment had risen by 900,000 in the last two years (a misleading claim since 320,000 of those jobs were created under Labour) but with forecasters agreed that unemployment will rise significantly next year as public sector job cuts intensify, he won't be able to use this boast for long.

Another notable moment came at the end when Labour MP John McDonnell, who represents Hayes and Harlington, asked Cameron to confirm that there will be no third runway at Heathrow while he leads his party. Cameron replied that he wanted to reach cross-party agreement on the future of aviation policy, but added: "I will not be breaking my manifesto pledge". It was the clearest confirmation we've had that while no third runway will be built this parliament, it remains a serious option for the future.

David Cameron faced Ed Miliband today at the first PMQs of the new parliamentary term. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

I was wrong about Help to Buy - but I'm still glad it's gone

As a mortgage journalist in 2013, I was deeply sceptical of the guarantee scheme. 

If you just read the headlines about Help to Buy, you could be under the impression that Theresa May has just axed an important scheme for first-time buyers. If you're on the left, you might conclude that she is on a mission to make life worse for ordinary working people. If you just enjoy blue-on-blue action, it's a swipe at the Chancellor she sacked, George Osborne.

Except it's none of those things. Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme is a policy that actually worked pretty well - despite the concerns of financial journalists including me - and has served its purpose.

When Osborne first announced Help to Buy in 2013, it was controversial. Mortgage journalists, such as I was at the time, were still mopping up news from the financial crisis. We were still writing up reports about the toxic loan books that had brought the banks crashing down. The idea of the Government promising to bail out mortgage borrowers seemed the height of recklessness.

But the Government always intended Help to Buy mortgage guarantee to act as a stimulus, not a long-term solution. From the beginning, it had an end date - 31 December 2016. The idea was to encourage big banks to start lending again.

So far, the record of Help to Buy has been pretty good. A first-time buyer in 2013 with a 5 per cent deposit had 56 mortgage products to choose from - not much when you consider some of those products would have been ridiculously expensive or would come with many strings attached. By 2016, according to Moneyfacts, first-time buyers had 271 products to choose from, nearly a five-fold increase

Over the same period, financial regulators have introduced much tougher mortgage affordability rules. First-time buyers can be expected to be interrogated about their income, their little luxuries and how they would cope if interest rates rose (contrary to our expectations in 2013, the Bank of England base rate has actually fallen). 

A criticism that still rings true, however, is that the mortgage guarantee scheme only helps boost demand for properties, while doing nothing about the lack of housing supply. Unlike its sister scheme, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, there is no incentive for property companies to build more homes. According to FullFact, there were just 112,000 homes being built in England and Wales in 2010. By 2015, that had increased, but only to a mere 149,000.

This lack of supply helps to prop up house prices - one of the factors making it so difficult to get on the housing ladder in the first place. In July, the average house price in England was £233,000. This means a first-time buyer with a 5 per cent deposit of £11,650 would still need to be earning nearly £50,000 to meet most mortgage affordability criteria. In other words, the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee is targeted squarely at the middle class.

The Government plans to maintain the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, which is restricted to new builds, and the Help to Buy ISA, which rewards savers at a time of low interest rates. As for Help to Buy mortgage guarantee, the scheme may be dead, but so long as high street banks are offering 95 per cent mortgages, its effects are still with us.