Angela Rayner's plight

The row over Angela Rayner's housing arrangements is of personal interest to me as I am in the process of downsizing to a retirement apartment with my new wife.

I had thought that I could rely on the local solicitors who are doing the conveyancing to tell me how much stamp duty I owe (incidentally a transaction tax that doesn't encourage freeing up larger houses).

But now it appears that I can't rely on them giving me the right figure and I might have to engage learned counsel which will involve expense and delay.

Otherwise I might find myself subject to a surcharge.   On the other hand, I don't suppose I'll be vilified in the local paper or have 'tax evader' scrawled outside my house.

The stamp duty regulations are more complex than they first appear and Angela Rayner has been foolish given that she knows there are people waiting to get her.

However, I really don't understand the apparently widely held view that the country is best run by people who have gone to Eton (Johnson) or another fee-paying school (Farage).   Over 90 per cent of us went to state education.

Angela Rayner clearly annoys some people because she is a woman from a council estate who left school at 16 and became deputy prime minister.   Her presence in government balances the less performative persona of Starmer.

So if she goes it will be a win for the Conservatives (and weasel Chris Mason with his lose-lose scenario). I'm not sure it will keep Badenoch in post to the next election, though.

Trying to build a prime ministerial department

There is no doubt that the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is the most crucial ministerial one in government.   Even when it starts well it often goes wrong - think Thatcher and Lawson. Another possibility is that the prime minister cedes authority over economic policy to the Chancellor and the Treasury, essentially the deal between Blair and Brown.   Something similar has happened with Starmer and Reeves.

It hasn't turned out that well, although my interpretation is not that Starmer is too weak to sack Reeves.  She is not that popular with the public, the Parliamentary party or party activists.

In many respects she has succumbed to Treasury orthodoxy - not that that is always a bad thing, someone has to ask awkward questions about ever rising public expenditure.   However, cutting the winter fuel allowance made fiscal sense but was bad politics.

It seems to me that what Starmer is doing is making a belated attempt to build prime ministerial capacity. Staffing at the centre of government is relatively limited compared with other countries, e.g., the German Chancellery.   Part of the problem is that No.10 and No.11 (effectively the same building) are so cramped.  You can put people in the Cabinet Office, but then they are one remove away from the decision makers. 

And don't get me started on the inadequacies of the Palace of Westminster!   Actually it would be a good idea to move the Commons, the Prime Minister and the key departments out of London and further north, but that will never happen.

Darren Jones is clearly one of the smarter government ministers and if anyone can help Starmer to get more of a grip on things, he will.   Meanwhile the autumn budget becomes more of a defining event.  The unprecedented amount of kite flying has actually harmed the real economy because every leaked suggestion is being treated as a concrete proposal.