What use does Boris Johnson have for an ethics adviser anyway? – Owl

His demeanour and delivery screamed exasperation, even if his words were carefully chosen. When Lord Geidt appeared before a parliamentary committee on Tuesday, for the best part of two hours, he didn’t look like a man in love with his job.

By Chris Mason Political editor, BBC News www.bbc.co.uk

Just over 24 hours later, in a written statement of few words and even less detail, came confirmation that he really didn’t.

He was resigning, the second such ethics adviser to the prime minister to walk in the last eighteen months. It appears he had concluded his position was untenable, enough was enough.

It also appears there are more details he is privy to about what has been going on than are currently known about more widely.

So what do we know about what happened in the last few days?

I’m told that on Monday, Lord Geidt met the prime minister and offered to serve in the job for another six months.

He was also asked by Boris Johnson to advise on a commercial decision the government is contemplating – and whether this would breach any existing commitments and so not be in line with the ministerial code.

We don’t know the details of this yet, nor if this request contributed to his resignation, but the specific timing of his departure has left No10 baffled, given his commitment to stay.

On Wednesday evening, Lord Geidt phoned the prime minister’s principal private secretary to tell him he was resigning. Mr Johnson was informed of the decision at about 18:30 BST, shortly after finishing a phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.

But while the particular timing has surprised some in Downing Street, Lord Geidt’s discomfort in the job has been evident for a while.

Just last month he had said in a report that it was a legitimate question to ask if Boris Johnson had breached the ministerial code by breaking Covid laws.

But, as Lord Geidt put it, the code’s “author and guardian” is Mr Johnson. The prime minister hadn’t sought an investigation from Lord Geidt into whether he had, and was of the view that he hadn’t.

As Lord Geidt put it: “I have attempted to avoid the independent adviser offering advice to a prime minister about a prime minister’s obligations under his own ministerial code.

“If a prime minister’s judgement is that there is nothing to investigate or no case to answer, he would be bound to reject any such advice, thus forcing the resignation of the independent adviser. Such a circular process could only risk placing the ministerial code in a place of ridicule.”

Lord Geidt also spelled out in the report that he didn’t like the terms of his job – “the prevailing arrangements still remained insufficiently independent to be able to command the confidence of the public” as he put it.

No 10 would point out some of those arrangements have since changed. But it is also true that so too had new guidelines meaning ministers wouldn’t get sacked for “minor” breaches of the ministerial code.

The truth is we don’t yet know definitively why Lord Geidt resigned, as his resignation letter has not been published – which itself is unconventional.

The prime minister is expected to write back to Lord Geidt on Thursday morning, and that reply may well be made public.

What we do know is it wasn’t just Partygate that caused headaches: a row about the renovation of the prime minister’s flat led Lord Geidt to rebuke Boris Johnson for showing “insufficient” respect for his role.

And remember, too, Lord Geidt’s predecessor resigned as well. Sir Alex Allan walked out in November 2020 after concluding the Home Secretary Priti Patel had breached the ministerial code, which conventionally results in a resignation or sacking. And yet Ms Patel didn’t leave and the prime minister didn’t sack her.

So twice in a year-and-a-half, the person appointed to oversee ethics and conduct in Mr Johnson’s government has given up.

Just as Mr Johnson had managed to shift the political conversation away from his behaviour and on to policy, a swirl of headlines about this appears.

And along with the headlines, comes a vacancy in government. I walked down Whitehall earlier on; I can’t say I spotted a queue of people lining up to take the job on.

The people of Whitby have voted overwhelmingly to limit the sale of second homes in the Yorkshire seaside town, making it the latest tourist hotspot to turn the tide on holidaymakers pricing out local people.

Tom Ball www.thetimes.co.uk 

A parish poll held on Monday night asked locals if they wanted new [homes] to be reserved for locals, to which 93 per cent voted in favour.

Of the 2,228 ballots cast, 157 voted against and 18 ballots were rejected.

One in five properties in the town where Bram Stoker’s Dracula is set, are second homes or holiday lets, according to Scarborough borough council.

That proportion has more than doubled in the past two decades.

People say that the rise in second-home ownership has meant that locals cannot afford to buy in their home town.

Last year house prices rose by 17 per cent and the average asking price is £254,218, according to Rightmove.

This is the second highest price increase of any coastal town, beaten only by Padstow in Cornwall where they jumped 20 per cent.

Anthony George, 25, said that the vote was an expression of “pent-up frustration” against a situation that had led to many young people having to leave Whitby.

“If you want to buy a house these days in Whitby, on a Whitby salary, good luck to you,” said George, an apprentice chef. The average salary in the town is £18,900.

“As it stands, I’m going to have to rent for the rest of my life if I want to stay, or move 20 miles inland.”

Whitby attracts more than 150,000 visitors each year, many of whom come to visit the ruins of the Benedictine abbey above the town.

The poll is the latest sign of unrest in tourist hotspots as local families struggle to match the prices paid by those wanting second homes by the sea.

Residents of St Ives, Fowey and Mevagissey – all in Cornwall – have previously voted to limit sales of new builds to permanent residents.

Last week Tim Farron, MP for South Lakes, urged the government to consider giving local authorities the power to limit second home ownership.

During a debate in parliament on the Levelling Up Bill, Farron said that excessive second home ownership had led to the prospect of buying or even renting a house becoming a “pipe dream” for people in rural areas such as his constituency in Cumbria.

The Whitby poll, which had a turnout of 24 per cent, is not legally binding but organisers hope it will influence planning decisions.

Linda Wild, the mayor of Whitby, called on the borough council and the government to amend planning regulations to make it possible to protect local housing for primary residence.

“We need a ‘use class’ which applies to holiday lets,” she said. “Then the planners can manage that change of use. We also need to tax second homes and holiday homes more effectively through council tax and business rates to reflect the impact they have on local people.

“Whitby is not unique in this predicament and local people want their voice heard by government alongside people from Cornwall, North Norfolk, Northumberland and the Lakes. We absolutely need government to give local people the power to keep holiday resort communities sustainable.”

A spokesman for Scarborough borough council said: “The outcome of the poll is no more and no less than an expression of the views of the electorate of the parish who have voted in the poll and is not binding on any organisation.”

The Liberal Democrats plan to flood Tiverton and Honiton with activists after internal polling suggested the party was only marginally trailing the Conservatives before next week’s byelection in the Devon constituency.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

A sample carried out by the party, based on tens of thousands of voter contacts, suggested that of people intending to vote on the day of the byelection, the Conservatives had 46% support and the Lib Dems 44%.

The party said it had a four-point deficit at the same point before December’s byelection in North Shropshire, which it won.

Victory for the Lib Dems in Tiverton and Honiton requires overturning a Conservative majority of 24,239, which the party says would be the biggest such margin ever overcome in a byelection, although other races have seen bigger swings in percentage terms.

If the polling figures are accurate they suggest that an unspoken accord between the Lib Dems and Labour to focus resources on one each of the two byelections taking place next Thursday could result in a double defeat for Boris Johnson.

Labour has concentrated efforts in Wakefield, where it appears to be well ahead. The Lib Dem figures suggest support for Labour in Tiverton and Honiton, where it has tried less hard, has shrunk to 6%.

Labour finished ahead of the Lib Dems in Tiverton and Honiton in 2019, and activists vigorously dispute the idea they are badly lagging there this time, saying recent council seat gains indicate they will again outperform the Lib Dems.

While the Lib Dems have triumphed in two previously strongly Tory seats in the last year, starting with a byelection win in Chesham and Amersham, party officials put their chances in the Devon seat at no better than 50-50.

The Conservatives have campaigned hard in Tiverton and Honiton, with Johnson among a series of senior figures to visit. Lib Dem canvassers report worries that some former Tory voters, while disaffected over issues such as Downing Street parties and complaints that the government has neglected the area, could simply stay at home rather than transfer their support.

The Lib Dems have issued a call for MPs, peers and activists to head to the constituency immediately to help with canvassing, with officials saying travel plans need to be made because of next week’s national rail strikes.

A party source said: “The momentum is definitely with the Liberal Democrats in Tiverton and Honiton, but it is not by any means over the line. If we get an army of activists knocking on doors this weekend, we can do it. Whatever happens it’s going to be a very close-run thing.”

The byelection was prompted by the resignation of Neil Parish, the Tory MP since 2010, after he admitted watching pornography on his phone in the Commons.

The vote in Wakefield is taking place after Imran Ahmad Khan, who took the previously Labour seat for the Conservatives in 2019, resigned after being found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy.

Professor Jim Hall, Professor of Climate and Environmental Risks and former Director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, said: “We need to have honest conversations with coastal communities that it will simply not be possible to protect every house and business from sea level rise.

Paul Jones www.sidmouthherald.co.uk 

Nearly 200,000 homes are at risk of being abandoned by the 2050s – and East Devon is on the list of affected areas, according to new research.

The district – which includes Sidmouth, Exmouth, Lyme Regis and Seaton – features in the top 20 places which would be hardest hit should water levels rise by around 35cm in the next 28 years, as forecasts warn.

According to new research published in the peer-reviewed journal Oceans and Coastal Management, sea level rises caused by climate change are putting nearly 200,000 English properties at risk of being abandoned by the 2050s.

The study was led by Paul Sayers, an expert on flood and coastal risks who works with the Tyndall Centre at University of East Anglia and advises the Climate Change Committee (CCC).

It concluded mean sea levels around England will be around 35cm higher by 2050 than their historical level and will continue to rise as increasing global temperatures, due to greenhouse gas emissions, melts glaciers and ice caps and causes ocean waters to expand as they warm.

In addition, foreshores are at risk of being eroded, which can further deepen the water at the coast leading to larger waves reaching the shore. 

The combination of sea-level rise and larger waves will greatly increase the number of properties at risk of flooding.

Investment in improved sea walls and other defences will protect many of the properties at risk, but this will not be affordable or possible everywhere. 

For the first time, the new study calculates how many English properties will be threatened with coastal flooding but where the costs of improving defences may be too high or technically impossible for the government to continue to protect communities, given current funding regimes.

The researchers found that, by the 2050s, 120,000-160,000 properties along the English coast are at risk of relocation due to sea level rise, in addition to 30-35,000 properties that had already been identified as at risk from sea level rise. 

This means the number of properties at risk is five times higher than suggested within current shoreline planning documents, and many communities that face an uncertain future haven’t yet been identified. 

In 2018, the CCC identified 100,000 properties that would be at risk from sliding into the sea due to coastal erosion – meaning around 300,000 properties are at risk from sea level rise and coastal erosion. 

This analysis found that around 30% of local authority assessments, known as Shoreline Management Plans, which recommend ‘Hold-the-Line’ in the longer term – implying that sea defences will be built and maintained along the shoreline – may be unrealistic as sea levels rise due to cost or feasibility constraints, covering 1,700km of the English coast. 

When will homes start to be lost?

In March 2020, 41% of mortgages had terms longer than 25 years and the median first-time buyer mortgage now lasts for 30 years. 

Many people may be buying houses or paying off mortgages on properties which will not be habitable or will be within a few years of being abandoned by the end of the mortgage term. 

Most people who are likely to be in this situation will be unaware of it and there is currently no government scheme to help them. 

Which local authorities have the most properties at risk? 

A total of 20 local authorities have 2,000 or more (some with tens of thousands) at risk of being lost to sea level rise including (ranked in order from most numbers of properties to fewest): 

1. North Somerset

2. Sedgemoor

3. Eastbourne

4. Wyre

5. North East Lincolnshire

6. Warrington

7. Swale

8. Dover

9. Portsmouth

10. Tendring

11. Ipswich

12. Gloucester

13. Bristol City

14. Maldon

15. Adur

16. Cornwall

17. East Devon

18. East Lindsey

19. East Suffolk

20. West Lancashire

Decisions on precisely which, and how many, of these properties and communities will have to move will depend on government policy, the research concluded.

Since sea level rise responds relatively slowly to changes in global temperatures these risks in the 2050s are now almost inevitable, even if emissions are now cut rapidly, it said.

But faster emission cuts will greatly reduce the amount of sea level rise later this century and beyond.

Lead author Mr Sayers said: “Significant sea level rise is now inevitable. For many of our larger cities at the coast protection will continue to be provided, but for some coastal communities this may not be possible.  

“We need a serious national debate about the scale of the threat to these communities and what represents a fair and sustainable response, including how to help people to relocate.”

How can we transition to stop this?

The study argues that England faces “a transformational challenge” but that there is a “lack of clarity as to how this transition will be made, particularly when it would impact communities”. 

A new round of updates to local authority plans, which is happening now, is an opportunity to promote a more open discourse including where it is necessary to discuss relocation, according to the study. 

It warns that postponing hard choices has consequences including “further (inappropriate) development [on flood plains]” or unfairly propagating “the belief that protection will continue in the long term”. 

The study assessed a number of factors to determine the likely pressure for relocation including the type of settlement and landscape, the existing local authority plan, the economic case for continuing to protect properties, and shoreline vulnerability. 

Large towns and cities are assumed to warrant Hold-the-Line protection while small communities are more vulnerable. 

The economic case was assessed on a cost-benefit analysis using a lower cost-benefit ratio than is usually used to calculate whether projects should attract central government support, meaning the study potentially underestimates the number of properties at risk. 

The combination of sea level rise and seabed erosion means that it will not be technically feasible to defend some areas, regardless of the question of cost, the report adds. 

The types of areas most at risk from sea level rise

They include: 

Single communities: For example, Fairbourne in Wales, which is already due to be abandoned to sea level rise.

These communities contain a large number of properties (Fairbourne has a population of 700 people) but the complexity of the shoreline and floodplain means that the cost of maintaining defences is so large that it can’t be justified. 

Communities containing dispersed clusters of properties on a long floodplain: For example, the Somerset Levels, East coast and North West.

A narrow floodplain, with properties on, constrained between the shoreline and raising ground, e.g. Dawlish (Dawlish is being protected but other places like this may not be so lucky) – often roads and railways run along these areas 

Small quay and coastal harbours communities: For example, quays across Cornwall – low lying properties squeezed between a rising ground and harbour quay walls 

Professor Jim Hall, Professor of Climate and Environmental Risks and former Director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, said: “We need to have honest conversations with coastal communities that it will simply not be possible to protect every house and business from sea level rise.

“These changes are coming sooner than we might think and we need to plan now for how we can adjust, including a nationwide strategic approach to deciding how to manage the coast sustainably in the future.”