Will the "granny tax" damage Boris Johnson?

"It is not my blooming Budget," says Mayor, distancing himself from pensioner cuts and even scrappin

For the last year at least, Boris Johnson has used just about every avenue available to him to publically lobby for a reduction in the top rate of tax.
Wednesday's Budget was a victory, then -- or was it? In an interview with the Guardian today, though unapologetic about his support for the new 45p tax band, Johnson refused to take any credit: "I am not the Chancellor".

Post-Budget polls show that 55 per cent of Londoners oppose the tax cut, versus just 35 per cent who support it. Johnson maintains his defence of the lower tax band, reiterating that "London has got to be tax-competitive". So why the reticence on taking credit for it?

The attack line adopted by Ken Livingstone, Johnsons' rival in the London mayoral race, holds some clues. The so-called "granny tax" was the lone measure in the Budget that had not been leaked in advance, and it caused uproar (you can see the almost universally negative front pages here). Livingstone's team has been quick to link the freeze in pensioner allowance to the cut in the top rate of tax -- a canny move, since 410,000 Londoners are set to lose an average of £83 a year -- a third of the 1.2 million Londoners aged over 60. These older voters traditionally support the Conservatives.

Johnson is nothing if not a consummate politician, and refused to be drawn on the question of the granny tax in his Guardian interview, instead emphasising his commitment to freedom passes, and distancing himself from the Budget entirely:

It may be some aspects of the Budget are not going down very well. I am not convinced that I will be necessarily associated with those measures. It is not my blooming Budget and it is not necessarily one that I would have written. There is plenty we can do in London to help the poorest and the needy.

But can he avoid being associated with the policies of central government? Elsewhere, he is keen to make much of his links -- his campaign material states that he is "the only candidate who can secure a better deal for Londoners from No 10".

Johnson's appeal has always rested on his reputation as a maverick, and the ability that goes with this to pick and choose which policies he gets behind. However, as my colleague Rafael Behr argued recently, this may be slipping:

Last time around, Boris was the challenger, which suited his self-image as a bit of a maverick, an eccentric, a TV personality and so, crucially, not a typical Tory. Some of that image remains, but the mantle of office has necessarily imposed a degree of discipline on the mayor. He still gets away with more mannered dishevelment than is usual for someone in his position, but there is an extent to which his pre-election persona has been absorbed into a more conventional political identity. Or, to put it in cruder terms, he is becoming more Tory than Boris.

In that context, his association with the City, Big Finance and the incumbent government could do him immense harm if -- as the RBS bonus episode suggests -- there is an appetite for some populist left noises in the campaign.

The latest polls show Johnson regaining his lead over Livingstone -- but can he maintain this as unpopular measures start to bite?

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

David Cameron shows Labour how to do it

Leftwing rhetoric masked rightwing reality in Cameron's conference speech.

“The tanks are in the kitchen,” was the gloomy verdict of one Labour staffer to a speech in which the Prime Minister roamed freely into traditional left-wing territory.

But don’t be fooled: David Cameron is still the leader of an incredibly right-wing government for all the liberal-left applause lines.

He gave a very moving account of the difficulties faced by careleavers: but it is his government that is denying careleavers the right to claim housing benefit after they turn 22.

He made a powerful case for expanding home ownership: but his proposed solution is a bung for buy-to-let boomers and dual-earner childless couples, the only working-age demographic to do better under Cameron than under Labour.

On policy, he made just one real concession to the left: he stuck to his guns on equal rights and continued his government’s assault on the ridiculous abuse of stop-and-search. Neither of these are small issues, and they are a world away from the Conservative party before Cameron – but they also don’t cost anything.

In exchange for a few warm words, Cameron will get the breathing space to implement a true-blue Conservative agenda, with an ever-shrinking state for most of Britain, accompanied by largesse for well-heeled pensioners, yuppie couples, and small traders.

But in doing so, he gave Labour a lesson in what they must do to win again. Policy-wise,it is Labour – with their plans to put rocketboosters under the number of new housing units built – who have the better plan to spread home ownership than Cameron’s marginal solutions. But last week, John McDonnelll focussed on the 100,000 children in temporary accomodation. They are undoubtedly the biggest and most deserving victims of Britain’s increasingly dysfunctional housing market. But Labour can’t get a Commons majority – or even win enough seats to form a minority government – if they only talk about why their policies are right for the poor. They can’t even get a majority of votes from the poor that way.

What’s the answer to Britain’s housing crisis? It’s more housebuilding, including more social housing. Labour can do what Cameron did today in Manchester – and deliver radical policy with moderate rhetoric, or they can lose.

But perhaps, if Cameron feels like the wrong role model, they could learn from a poster at the People’s History Museum, taken not from Labour’s Blairite triumphs or even the 1960s, but from 1945: “Everyone – yes, everyone – will be better off under a Labour government”.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.