We are now counting the cost of Michael Gove's dreadful mistake
After a long and controversial career in politics, Michael Gove drew many admirers from the Conservative Party. But one of his biggest blunders is only now coming to light, and could well end up costing the Tories crucial votes next time Britain goes to the polls.
The Tories' 'Mr Fixit' served continuously in the Cabinet for 14 years under four prime ministers. Though (tellingly), he never held one of the Great Offices of State, he was unusually effective, particularly in reforming the education system and seeking to end the scandal of leasehold property 'ownership'.
Highly intelligent and full of can-do energy, he is the kind of politician who actually gets things done, rather than serving up endless platitudes like most MPs.
But his eagerness for change was also his weakness (see his disastrous public betrayal of Boris Johnson), and second home owners are now feeling the ill-effects.
I'm not convinced he fully understood the powers he handed to local councils as part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. Perhaps I'm being too generous, but the powers go against everything the Conservatives should stand for.
Thousands of people across Britain have been shocked to receive demands for double council tax on second properties under powers granted by Mr Gove that took effect in April.
Back in 2023, the Government said one of the outcomes of the reforms would be to 'rebalance the housing and land markets'. It would do this by 'giving local councils the power to increase council tax on empty homes'.
That statement was misleading. The fine print of the Act makes it clear this is an increase on second homes, no matter how well used they are, not simply empty properties wealthy investors are hoarding with no intention of ever using.
Councils have already had the power to charge extra tax on emptyhomes since 2013. These were unfurnished properties that had been unoccupied for at least two years, and the premium was set at 50pc to encourage owners to rent them out or sell up. That seems fair enough.
The changes that Mr Gove brought in attack boltholes, often owned by families for generations. These are often in places where there is actually little demand for year-round housing.
Several writers at The Spectator, the august organ that Mr Gove now runs as editor, agree.
Matthew Lynn, also of this parish, notes that second homes account for just 3pc of our housing stock, compared to 10pc in France and 54pc in Sweden. He argues that, rather than penalising owners, we should be encouraging people to buy one.
In the same magazine, Ross Clark makes the obvious point that the real issue is we are not building enough of the kind of the houses in the places we actually want them. Branding second homers as evildoers who need to be bled dry, doesn't fix that one jot.
What does Mr Gove make of all this?
Does he regret giving councils free rein to extort property owners, some of who have invested in these homes in lieu of pensions and other savings to support themselves in old age, or painstakingly restored dilapidated homes no one else wanted?
We don't know what he thinks because he has been strangely quiet. To his credit, he is not stopping others from criticising his second homes raid, but we deserve to hear his side of the story.
Telegraph Money reader, Sue, is spot on when she says that the 'only people it seems to be popular with are the local councils, who can't believe their luck'.
She added: 'At a stroke, the Tories lost many of their hardcore voters (including me), some of them probably never to return (very probably me).'
He was a mercurial politician of rare skill but he has opened pandora's box. The least we deserve is an apology and his help in reversing a wrong-headed raid on aspiration.
The Telegraph is campaigning to abolish the second homes council tax raid. Mr Gove, if you are ready to join us, my email is below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Spectator
Britain needs reform
This week's spending review confirms that where there should be conviction, there is only confusion; where there should be vision, only a vacuum. The country is on the road to higher taxes, poorer services and a decaying public realm, with the bandits of the bond market lying in wait to extract their growing take from our declining share of global wealth. When every warning light is flashing red, the government is driving further and faster towards danger The Chancellor approached this spending review with her credibility already undermined. Promises not to raise taxes on working people translated into a tax on work itself which has driven up unemployment. A pledge to put growth first has been accompanied by changes to employment law that make the labour market more rigid and the cost of hiring workers commensurately greater. A party which excoriated the Conservatives for letting prices rise has pumped billions into public-sector wage hikes and seen inflation increase again. An apparent determination to take difficult decisions to control spending by removing pensioners' winter fuel payments has crumbled in the face of backbench pressure. The farcical retreat has only emboldened those in Labour who want to drive us deeper into debt. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are the most hopeless spending addicts but they are not the only departments to have wrung more from the Treasury than the nation can afford – or the Chancellor indicated she wanted. Ed Miliband has shown that, whatever other criticisms may be directed at him, he is brilliant at getting high on the taxpayers' supply – with generous subsidies for domestic decarbonisation and billions for the most expensive energy the markets can provide. The Department for Education has secured millions more to get the state to pay for families' food. Angela Rayner has extra billions, not to build new houses but to buy existing homes for the state. The Department for Transport also has a line of credit to pay for schemes no private sector investor would go near. And any lingering expectations that welfare reform would yield significant savings seems fanciful given the Prime Minister's desire to end the two-child cap on benefit payments. It is not as though this programme can be justified on the basis of an economy that's roaring back. Tax changes this government has introduced have led to a flight of the wealthy and a consequent depression in revenue. Alongside rises in inflation and unemployment, the cost of government borrowing is escalating to a level which causes international markets to demand a heftier risk premium. At a time when every warning light is flashing red, the government is determined to drive further and faster towards danger. Perhaps the greatest sin of this spending review is one of omission. There is no indication that all this additional expenditure will be accompanied by meaningful public-sector reform. The civil service headcount is growing. In education, the greater autonomy and accountability which drove up school standards is being abandoned. Our shoddily inefficient criminal justice system remains a mess of unaccountable fiefdoms: lamentably inadequate chief constables hide their failures behind the alibi of 'operational independence', the Crown Prosecution Service is a creaking liability and courts are hidebound by a judiciary that resists effective management of their operations. The additional money for defence is going to a department whose procurement policies are hardly a model of prudence. And despite the best efforts of Wes Streeting, one cabinet minister who is at least intent on reform, the extra cash for the NHS risks being swallowed whole by staff unions rather than being used to create incentives for change. The failure to fundamentally reform the functioning of government is all too visible in every operation of the state. Britain desperately needs reform. But our government offers only the inadequate management of accelerating decline. Licences to kill While the state proves incapable of reform, our parliament is attempting to prove it is world-leading in terminating innocent lives. Legislation to make it easier to kill the ill and elderly (the private member's bill to encourage suicide) appears still to enjoy majority support. And next week Labour MPs seek to amend the Crime and Policing Bill to decriminalise abortion. The state should undoubtedly treat any decision to terminate a pregnancy with sensitivity. But this amendment is an invitation to abusive partners to coerce vulnerable women into late-stage abortions and removes one of the last protections unborn children still have. Do we really want this decade to be one in which the only thing we do more efficiently than ever is kill innocent souls?
South Wales Argus
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Nigel Farage and the thousands funding Reform UK's campaigns
The big donors included Bassim Haidar, the Nigerian-born Lebanese entrepreneur who gave the Tories more than £670,000 under Rishi Sunak, was there, as was Arron Banks, the former UKIP donor who spent millions campaigning to leave the European Union. Farage was given a rousing introduction by Oswald's owner, clubland impresario Robin Birley, who donated £25,000 to Reform a few weeks before the general election. Reform reportedly took in more than £1m that night at Oswald's in an event that was part of a wider strategy of attracting big money. 'Reform is where the money is going now,' says former Conservative donor Mohamed Amersi, having paid £25,000 to attend the Oswald's fundraiser. Using millionaire money England to fight the Welsh Senedd election, using English-developed policies and with an English MP as its current leader and main campaigner in Wales. A long way from being the man of the working classes. Andrew Nutt, Bargoed
Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Spectator
Rachel Reeves, the Iron Chancer
Gordon Brown may not be every teenager's political pin-up. But as an Oxford student, Rachel Reeves proudly kept a framed photo of him in her bedroom. It was Brown who introduced the first multi-year spending review in 1998: the kind of big political set-piece speech which he relished. Reeves's speech on Wednesday showed the level of constraints facing the Treasury this decade vs the 1990s. Chess, not poker, is the Chancellor's chosen game of recreation. As a player and a politician, she prides herself on making decisions guided by skill, care and thought. Yet this week she staked her government's future on a series of political bets. Her tax rises and changes to Treasury rules gave her some £300 billion to spend across Whitehall – including £113 billion in capital funding. This is proof, her supporters say, that Reeves offers the kind of long-term thinking so absent under the Tories. But her exposure to risk means she is less 'Iron Chancellor', more 'Iron Chancer'. Her first bet is on the UK's finances holding strong until October. Her fiscal headroom is just £9.9 billion, a buffer that could prove insufficient against further economic shocks. Domestic growth is sluggish and the global economy is set for its worst decade since the 1960s. Within the Treasury there are predictions of another nervy summer spent watching the bond markets. In the past year, UK ten-year gilt yields are now higher than after the Liz Truss 'mini-Budget' which the Chancellor so disdains. The high UK risk premium means yields have risen more than their equivalents in any other G7 country this year, bar Japan. Reeves is waging that the City views her plan as credible both now and when the OBR reports in the autumn. The bond markets need only be lucky once; she will have to be lucky always. Then there is inflation, which is at 3.5 per cent. One aide involved in the last spending review, back in 2021, suggests the subsequent erosion of Whitehall budgets should serve as a 'cautionary tale' for ministers cheering this week. 'Labour is running a looser policy. It just shows all of this is for naught if you don't have a wider grip,' they said. Rachel Reeves has staked her government's future on a series of political bets Reeves's second big bet is on health, the winner of the review. Wes Streeting's department received a £29 billion rise in its day-to-day spending budget: 60 per cent of the cash increase available to Reeves. 'If we don't fix the NHS, we won't win re-election' is the argument Streeting made to the Treasury. More money, though, won't guarantee results. As Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies – and one of Reeves's favourite economists – noted this week, 'very, very big increases' in the number of doctors and nurses in NHS England between 2019 and 2024 yielded a 'much smaller increase in measured activity'. On current trends, the health service will employ almost 10 per cent of England's entire workforce within a decade. An ageing population will only increase its demands for state spending. The third bet is on her party's stomach for spending cuts. Citing the jump in spending from 2026/27 to 2028/29, Reeves told the House: 'In place of chaos, I choose stability. In place of decline, I choose investment.' But her words will give little encouragement to her backbenchers. Labour's U-turn over the winter fuel payment, which dominated so much of the pre-review coverage, concerned just £1.2 billion (0.4 per cent of welfare spending) in a state that is projected to spend nearly £1.5 trillion by 2029. While the Chancellor goes all in on public services, others are placing their bets elsewhere. Some senior Tories, jaded by their time in office, argue privately that Britain's woes will be fixed only by an overhaul of Whitehall's power structures. It is not just the post-Blair constitutional settlement that needs reversing, but the post-Brown Treasury set-up, too. While No. 10 and the Treasury slugged it out over the precise wording of Reeves's speech on the day before the review, Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, met 15 hedge fund leaders for breakfast. It was the kind of smoked salmon schmoozing that Reeves did in opposition not so long ago. 'I think they call it a vibe shift,' remarks one aide. That change in the pace of politics is precisely why Labour MPs are urging the Chancellor to 'get the money out the door as quickly as possible'. Colleagues cite Joe Biden's failure to convince voters that they were better off under him, arguing that the British electorate must feel any benefits from new spending within the next year. Reeves can point to quick measures such as public sector pay increases and 500,000 more children getting free school meals. The £13.2 billion warm homes plan was ring-fenced, much to Ed Miliband's delight, to try to bring down energy bills. Long-term infrastructure schemes, such as £14.2 billion for Sizewell C, have been balanced against £15.6 billion on local projects. Yet such was the level of concern about MPs' reaction that Reeves began briefing them a full 24 hours before delivering her statement. The Chancellor's more generous colleagues recognise the immense strain she is under. Reeves must contend with two things that Brown's Treasury never faced: a stuttering economy and the end of the Cold War peace dividend. Defence spending will rise to 2.6 per cent in April 2027. 'Gordon never had to face a review like this,' remarks one veteran, citing Brown's persistent and vocal demands for Reeves to lift the two-child benefit cap. Another Labour MP notes that any political consensus tends to last 30 years: 'We might now be coming to the end of the Third Way consensus.' At cabinet, prior to heading to the Commons, Keir Starmer told ministers that the spending review 'marks the end of the first phase of this government'. It was a remark intended to signal a line in the sand after a difficult first year in office. Yet if, as expected, Reeves hikes taxes again in the autumn, voters may struggle to see the difference. The Chancellor's figures rest on the hope that growth will be strong enough, inflation tame enough and tax receipts robust enough to last until October. Will her plan pay off? Don't bet on it.
