Why the Tories are wrong to assume that Help to Buy is political gold

While Osborne believes that "everyone will be happy as property values go up", new polling shows most of the public don't believe rising house prices are good for them or good for Britain.

There is rarely a day when the government's Help to Buy scheme isn't criticised by some major organisation or political figure, and today's rebuke was provided by Ed Balls. In his speech to the CBI, he warned that inflating demand without significantly increasing supply would deliver "an unbalanced recovery" and "make home ownership even further out of reach for the aspiring first time buyers his scheme should be helping."

But unperturbed by such criticisms, the Tories are convinced that the policy is "retail gold". George Pascoe Watson recently reported that David Cameron had "ordered staff to ensure he meets couples taking advantage of the £10,000 assistance on offer whenever he goes on a regional visit". But while those who benefit directly from Help to Buy will obviously be grateful, what of those who don't? George Osborne reportedly told the cabinet recently, "Hopefully we will get a little housing boom and everyone will be happy as property values go up", but he would be wrong to assume that the public regard higher house prices as an unqualified good. A new poll by Ipsos MORI for Inside Housing shows that 57% disagree that "rising house prices are a good thing for Britain" (23% of whom strongly disagree), while just 20% agree. In addition, by 41% to 29%, they disagree that "rising house prices are a good thing for me personally". The recent experience of the crash and concern at the lack of affordable housing for young people has, perhaps unsurprisingly, persuaded the public that inflating another housing bubble isn't a great idea.

If the impression develops that the government is focused on stimulating demand rather than expanding supply, Help to Buy could well prove a vote loser. By pledging to build 200,000 homes a year by 2017 and to limit the inflationary effect of Help to Buy (most obviously by reducing the current £600,000 cap for support), Labour is positioning itself to take advantage of this new sceptical mood.

George Osborne delivers his speech to the Conservative conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496