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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Are the Conservatives getting ready to learn to love the EEA?

You can see the shape of the deal that the right would accept. 

In an early morning address aimed half reassuring the markets and half at salvaging his own legacy, George Osborne set out the government’s stall.

The difficulty was that the two halves were hard to reconcile. Talk of “fixing the roof” and getting Britain’s finances in control, an established part of Treasury setpieces under Osborne, are usually merely wrong. With the prospect of further downgrades in Britain’s credit rating and thus its ability to borrow cheaply, the £1.6 trillion that Britain still owes and the country’s deficit in day-to-day spending, they acquired a fresh layer of black humour. It made for uneasy listening.

But more importantly, it offered further signs of what post-Brexit deal the Conservatives will attempt to strike. Boris Johnson, the frontrunner for the Conservative leadership, set out the deal he wants in his Telegraph column: British access to the single market, free movement of British workers within the European Union but border control for workers from the EU within Britain.

There is no chance of that deal – in fact, reading Johnson’s Telegraph column called to mind the exasperated response that Arsene Wenger, manager of Arsenal and a supporter of a Remain vote, gave upon hearing that one of his players wanted to move to Real Madrid: “It's like you wanting to marry Miss World and she doesn't want you, what can I do about it? I can try to help you, but if she does not want to marry you what can I do?”

But Osborne, who has yet to rule out a bid for the top job and confirmed his intention to serve in the post-Cameron government, hinted at the deal that seems most likely – or, at least, the most optimistic: one that keeps Britain in the single market and therefore protects Britain’s financial services and manufacturing sectors.

For the Conservatives, you can see how such a deal might not prove electorally disastrous – it would allow them to maintain the idea with its own voters that they had voted for greater “sovereignty” while maintaining their easy continental holidays, au pairs and access to the Erasmus scheme.  They might be able to secure a few votes from relieved supporters of Remain who backed the Liberal Democrats or Labour at the last election – but, in any case, you can see how a deal of that kind would be sellable to their coalition of the vote. For Johnson, further disillusionment and anger among the voters of Sunderland, Hull and so on are a price that a Tory government can happily pay – and indeed, has, during both of the Conservatives’ recent long stays in government from 1951 to 1964 and from 1979 to 1997.

It feels unlikely that it will be a price that those Labour voters who backed a Leave vote – or the ethnic and social minorities that may take the blame – can happily pay.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.