A burnt oven ready deal is the meal at the table

I watched quite a lot of the Brexit debate today.  In the latter part backbenchers either seemed to want to celebrate their contribution to bringing about Brexit or say how awful it was.  In fact I switched off after Dame Cheryl Gillan's contribution as in terms of both content and delivery she seemed to be auditioning for a role as a minor royal in the next series of the Crown.  I did catch Caroline Lucas and then the closing speeches.

I suppose if there was a take home message for me it is that, as Hilary Benn said, the agenda now shifts to determining our relationship with the EU which I suspect will be in a state of constant flux and renegotiation like that of Switzerland.

Boris Johnson managed to get away with his usual range of invalid points.  He made a comparison with the time the Uruguay Round negotiations took, but those involved most of the world.  We would be free of state aid rules which is not how I understood the agreement given that the UK will have to set up a new state aid review body.    We could make our own regulatory rules.   But supposing, say, we approved a pesticide banned in the EU.  Crops produced with it could then face tariffs or even a complete ban.   He mentioned again that the EU original transition offer on fishing had been 14 years, but that soon reduced to eight which is why 5.5 years was halfway between Britain's three and the EU's eight.

He called for an end to rancour and recrimination, but that overlooks the way in which social media makes everything binary.   His best point was at the end when he referred to the UK as a half hearted, sometimes obstructive member of the EU.  We have, indeed, been an awkward partner.   However, T Singh Daesi made one of a number of effective interventions when he referred to a 'burnt oven ready deal'.

Keir Starmer was caught between a rock and a hard place and indeed one Opposition Whip has resigned. He just about managed to hold on to his argument that a thin deal is better than a no deal and that voting against was a self-indulgent luxury given that there would be a vote in favour.   His speech as a whole made some good points on details, such as the fact that there would be non-tariff barriers to trade, but was not very impressive in big picture terms.   Indeed, he often looked grim faced, flustered and exasperated, particularly when the honourable member for Carmarthen (independent) kept interrupting him.   His vision was of an 'outward looking, optimistic and rules-based country.'

Ian Blackford managed to pontificate for 25 minutes in his usual self-satisfied and pompous manner.  At one time he seemed to be yearning for the Auld Alliance.  He did, however, argue with some force that Scotland would lose a 'precious part of what we are' by leaving the EU. He did manage to score a few points against Michael Gove  on fisheries.   Having invoked the spirit of Winnie Ewing as Madame Ecosse, he predicted that the empty seat at the top table at Europe would not remain empty for long.  It is, of course, a possible scenario.

Theresa May's stock is very low these days but I thought she made an effective short speech.   She pointed out to those voting against that there was a better deal on the table in 2019.   She was disappointed by a deal on goods which had little or nothing to say on services which account for 80 per cent of the economy. [Of course, many of these are not traded, but financial services are].  Services would have to be negotiated on a member state basis, those for the Czech Republic, for example, requiring a residence requirement.  She also referred to something called the Partnership Council which I admit that I know nothing about and must investigate further.  [Apparently it is the body that settles trade disputes between the UK and the EU, but much will depend on how this works in practice as with the WTO disputes settlement mechanism].  She warned that sovereignty does not mean isolationism or exceptionalism.  We live in an interconnected world.

Ian Duncan-Smith insisted that he was not anti-European and loved Europe (just as Ian Blackford said that he loved England and the English).   What this means, of course, is that he and others have no objection to enjoying French cuisine, but don't want to work alongside France in a systematic rather than ad hoc fashion.

Caroline Lucas admitted that she and others had voted against a softer form of Brexit, but referred once again to the need for a confirmatory referendum.   I was never as confident as the hard core remainers that a second referendum would have delivered a different result.  I never liked the idea of a second vote to get the right answer and would have probably abstained.  The Brexiteers have had the better strategies and tactics, if only in terms of unrelenting pursuit of their objective.

Michael Gove declared in conclusion that 'We have kept faith with the people.'   He then proceeded to make a number of partisan points against Starmer and the SNP.

Both the second and third readings passed by 521 votes to 73.   My MP, Matt Western, was going to vote in favour which I think was the right decision.

Life after high office

An excellent blog post which looks at what happens to politicians after they leave office. Theresa May is the central theme, but the net is cast much wider: Losing political office

As is pointed out, the psychological costs of political exit can be high, particularly if you have no 'hinterland'. I remember being at an event where Ted Heath was sulking in a corner and being rude. Dennis Healey read me his latest poem.

Of recent prime ministers, John Major has probably made the best adjustment, in part because he is seen as a fundamentally decent guy and not as bad a prime minister as he was seen to be at the time, surrounded by rampant Eurosceptics.

PMQs today showed what political exit can look like, both the PM and the front bench looked as if they were attending a wake in a morgue, which I suppose they were.

How does Theresa May compare with other prime ministers?

My attempt to compare Theresa May with other less successful prime ministers over the last hundred years: Disastrous prime ministers

A legacy of unfulfilled ambitions

A balanced piece of writing on Theresa May by Bronwen Maddox: Theresa May resigns legacy unfulfilled

I only met her once when she was a rising star and I was instrumental in her being given a Parliamentarian of the Year Award. We had a long chat. Contrary to contemporary reports, I found her to be relaxed and very easy to talk to. Perhaps the burdens of office changed her.

Downing Street produced a bunker mentality in Gordon Brown, so perhaps that also happened with Mrs May. Dave Cameron, of course, was the epitome of being chillaxed.

All we can do is pray

Cometh the hour, cometh the man?

It seems to me that what Theresa May is now trying is a de facto National Government and I don't think it will work because it would split both parties and is not in Jezza's interest.

The fate of peacetime national governments in the UK is not a happy one. In the 1918 'coupon' election Lloyd George was able to continue at a head of a de facto national government which soon became mired in scandal. Eventually the Conservatives staged the Carlton Club revolt which resulted in the formation of the 1922 committee and the Welsh wizard went into the political wilderness. BTW, I would recommend Ffion Hague's biography which draws heavily on Welsh language sources.

In 1931 the formation of the National Government split the Labour Party and left them out of office in their own right until 1945.

If the Conservatives and Labour did agree a deal, they would need enough votes to get it through the Commons which would not be easy. I don't think it's in Jezza's interests to bail out the Conservatives. Also, Labour is understandably concerned about May being succeeded by a hard line Brexiteer, although they would fancy their chances against Bozza who has been out voting in non-existent elections.

One thing that has struck me in the last week is how upset many lifelong members of the Labour Party about the party's current situation. As someone who is barred from party membership of any kind, it is difficult for me to appreciate just how they feel. However, many of them worked for the Labour Party all their adult lives (or earlier) and it is a central part of their identity.

Personally, I am getting exasperated by both the hard line Brexiteers and the hard core remainers. The divisions in Parliament actually reflect divisions in the country which are felt in personal relationships. We also have many urgent public policy issues that are being neglected given the bandwidth taken up by Brexit.

The European Parliament elections are very likely to go ahead and I would expect the Brexit Party to come in first. Although I appreciate that the Lib Dems were burnt by their experience with the Social Democrats, the three remain parties have shot themselves in the foot by not having a coordinated strategy, admittedly not easy under the d'Hondt system. The Change UK (or whatever they are called this week) launch was a farce. If you are a new party you need to know what you brand and message is and Farage does.

We are in May, the month of Mary, Queen of Peace. When I go to mass this morning, I expect to be offered the opportunity to pray for Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition, but I have little hope of any prayers being answered.

Labour's minority government ploy

John McDonnell has suggested that Labour could form a minority government if Theresa May's Brexit deal is rejected by the House of Commons, as seems likely. Labour would first have to defeat the Government in a vote of confidence. This would require the support of the Democratic Unionists. That seems unlikely to me, if it meant ushering in even a minority Labour Government. They would be more likely to abstain.

However, let's suppose that Labour did win. The Queen would then send for Mr Corbyn and he would have 14 days to form a minority government. Labour has already held talks with the Scottish Nationalists, although they disagree over freedom of movement. Caroline Lucas would presumably support Labour, as would Plaid Cymru. The Liberal Democrats would certainly demand a second referendum, something that Mr Corbyn does not want. If the Labour Government was defeated on a vote of confidence, there would then be a general election which is what Labour says it wants anyway.

It's an interesting scenario, but an unlikely one. What is possibly being underestimated is the 'Norway for now' option advocated by Nick Boles gaining more traction.

Jumping the Gun

You have to laugh at last night's Evening Standard front page. All the posturing by ERG Brexiteers has ended up with them looking foolish. Tactically the moment to challenge Theresa May would be when she loses (as seems very likely) her Commons vote on her plan. Mind you, her popularity is going up with the public and she is giving some attention to technological solutions to the border issue.

Captain Mainwaring is a rather ambiguous figure: pompous and with poor judgment, but also heroic in a low key way and in that sense an embodiment of the much vaunted 'Dunkirk spirit.'

It is certainly no help when one country is negotiating against 27 and a tactically astute Commission. The idea that a prime minister committed to Brexit could somehow face down the EU is a fallacy in my view.

Why Mrs May and the Conservatives are survivors

For the Conservatives being in power, or at least in office, is the number one priority. An excellent article on why Mrs May and the Conservatives are survivors: Dead woman walking?

If I had a pound for every time I have heard or read that Mrs May was a dead woman walking or would be facing a leadership challenge by the end of the week, I could afford a weekend away in Lynton.

Take a chance on me

Theresa May's theme tune yesterday really should have been 'Take a Chance on Me', although I know that 'Dancing Queen' is one of her favourite tracks. In any event, she didn't meet her Waterloo at the Conservative conference yesterday. Groan, but I couldn't get these jokes into my television appearances yesterday.

It was a well crafted speech and effective because it sounded authentic. (Well done, Keelan Carr - he has been very low profile before now - but other such as Gavin Barwell helped). She returned to some of the 'One Nation' narratives she talked about when she became prime minister.

Of course, rhetoric is one thing, reality is another. She talked of an end to austerity, but where is the money coming from? Fuel duty was frozen again. I appreciate that that is an unpopular tax and that oil prices are rising, but the cost could be £800m in one year.

Spreadsheet Phil looks unlikely to risk the farm at the end of October with Brexit looming. Indeed, according to the FT this morning, the Treasury is already concerned about spending pledges made at the conference. The NHS will get some extra money, but what about cash strapped local councils that have to provide social care? Their failure to do more than the legal minimum impacts the NHS.

The speech was, of course, significant for what was not said. There was no mention of the C-word. The strategy appears to be to stand up to the EU in the hope that they will cave in. 'I am standing up for Britain', 'we must keep our nerve' etc. But any hope of a compromise on Northern Ireland has been undermined by the Democratic Unionists going into 'no surrender' mode.

If she can get a deal, Conservative backbenchers would need to think carefully about voting it down. Some Labour MPs would probably support the Government. However, the risk of crashing out remains real and preparations are still inadequate.

I think the proposed festival is a gimmick. I remember the 1951 one which was fun at the time because of the Battersea funfair and it was a sign that the end of wartime austerity might be in sight. Churchill thought it was an advert for socialism, and I suppose in a way it was.

BTW, as an article in The Times pointed out yesterday, time is running out if a second referendum is to be held before March given the relevant legislation and the role of the Electoral Commission.

If legislation was introduced when Parliament convenes next week, the earliest date on which a referendum could be held would be March 28th: How long would it take

Theresa May's rhetoric

Dr Andrew Scott Crines, an expert in rhetoric and oratory, provides a novel perspective on the speech by Theresa May last Friday: The rhetorical gamble

He concludes: 'Put simply, there is no longer the luxury of emotional self-indulgences as the realities of Brexit must now increasingly be faced. We are leaving the EU, single market, and customs union – but the strategy of the government, based on May’s speech, will be ensure that post-Brexit the UK continues to enjoy as much unfettered access to the European markets as possible whilst continuing to co-operate on a range of other areas such as crime and terrorism.'

Is such a strategy acceptable to the EU remains very much an open question. One thing is clear: the EU does not want the UK to be better off as a result of leaving.

The night of the blunt knives

It has been variously characterised as the night of the blunt knives or the night of the long plastic knives, but Theresa May's reshuffle was another presentational disaster, emphasising once again the limits of her authority.

The problems started with Chris Grayling being named as party chairman (he apparently was in the frame) only for this to be corrected some time later. Jeremy Hunt was then able to resist being moved from Health and ended up with an expanded portfolio. An attempt to shift Justine Greening to Work and Pensions ended up with her leaving the government.

If anything demonstrates the limits of Mrs May's authority, it is the grinning visage of Andrea Leadsom on Twitter this morning celebrating her continuation in office as Leader of the House. Her departure was widely anticipated, but although Mrs May is said to have a low opinion of her, she remained in place.

Apparently Downing Street cat Larry has been rebranded as Minister for Rodent Control. One thing is clear: Mrs May isn't in control. But this does not mean she is in any real danger, as there is no clear successor.

Not surprisingly, George Osborne's Evening Standard is critical, praising her for the hat trick of the worst manifesto, the worst conference speech and the worst reshuffle: Prime minister's essential weakness

Voicegate

I can feel sympathy for the prime minister, I have had far less important speeches interrupted by a frog in the throat. She may well have been affected by fatigue (26 interviews yesterday) and we have to remember that she is diabetic. However, pity or sympathy is not necessarily what she needs.

The difficulty is that I (and I think others) started to focus on whether she would get to the end of the speech rather than its substantive content. Her opponents were able to start tweeting remarks about 'weak and wobbly'. It didn't help her to get across her theme about reviving 'the British dream', arguing that the left does not have a monopoly on compassion.

The interruption by a prankster/protester (I have seen two names on social media) with a P45 signed by 'Boris Johnson' actually helped her after a rather flat period in her speech with little applause, she was able to turn it to her advantage. She suggested that Jeremy Corbyn should get a P45. The fact that the comedian was able to get so close for so long does raise issues about security.

She also made good use of the provision of a throat pastille by the Chancellor, saying that you do get something for free from him. Amber Rudd (who interviewed well on Radio 5 earlier) had to encourage Boris Johnson to get up for a standing ovation.

What is more significant is a contradiction in the heart of the speech: defending free markets, but then (correctly) identifying so many markets that are broken. Putting a cap on energy prices is a policy that Ed Miliband advocated.

In terms of the broken housing market, one has to ask how it was broken in the first place. Perhaps Mrs Thatcher should have not have sold off so much social housing, although admittedly it was a popular policy.

She said that house builders should 'do their duty' and build the houses, but presumably they are responding to market signals in a market economy.

She started well by getting her apology for the election campaign early, admitting that it was too scripted and too presidential and saying 'I hold my hands up.'

On Brexit, she said that the Government would prepare for every eventuality, suggesting that the 'no deal' option is still on the table.

The fact that the 'f' fell off the slogan behind the platform reinforced the impression of disarray. The activists rallied round her, but they looked rather grim faced. This conference has not revived spirits in the party.

Standing ovation for Bozza

Boris Johnson recalled the challenges he faced as London mayor in his conference speech

Boris Johnson got a standing ovation at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester today. How it will resonate outside the hall is another matter, but in a sense it is the people inside the hall that matter for they and their fellow activists could elect him as prime minister in a future contest.

I am no fan of Boris Johnson, but it was a clever and often (as one would expect) funny speech. He was even able to turn errors in reading his script into jokes. He could not be accused of disloyalty, pledging himself to every syllable of Theresa May's Florence speech, but still managed to carve out a distinctive position. He engaged in a lot of Jeremy Corbyn bashing, but it was his criticisms of his successor as London mayor, Sadiq Khan, that went down best in the hall.

He piled into the mood of pessimism, singling out the Financial Times (and by implication The Economist). His distinctive Brexit narrative centred around the role in the world that a global Britain could play, although in my view that involved some exaggeration of Britain's importance and the extent to which the UK is liked internationally.

His message was that Britain should 'seize the opportunities' of Brexit. No doubt he will seize any opportunity that presents itself of becoming prime minister for ambition is never far below the surface. There is nothing wrong with ambition, provided it is ambition to achieve things beyond personal advancement.

The devil is in the detail

That was the impression I was left with after Mrs May's Brexit speech in Florence, and we didn't get much detail beyond what was leaked beforehand, although the questions from journalists did tease out one or two points.

Despite the prime minister's insistence that Britain was able to carve out a new relationship with the EU that did not have to draw on existing models, I got the impression that she was trying to steer a middle course between the Europhiles and Europhobes in her own party. She rejected both the EEA and Canadian free trade treaty models as unsuitable for both the UK and EU. In particular, she noted that the Canadian model made insufficient provision for mutual market access, so her 'bespoke' model may be close to the 'Norwegian' end of the spectrum, even if she rejects the idea of such a spectrum.

The beginning and end of the speech was largely rhetorical, so the key part was in the middle. A comprehensive security treaty with the EU including justice and home affairs issues does offer the EU an incentive for agreement.

It was also made clear that the UK would make payments during what she envisages as a two year implementation or transition period, shorter than the three years that business and Europhiles want, but longer than the six months the likes of Boris Johnson think would be sufficient. A figure was not mentioned, although £18m (around €20m depending of the exchange rate) has been leaked. This provides a basis for negotiation, although it does not take into account the €9bn/€10bn of pension commitments.

I was a bit surprised to hear that there had been 'concrete progress' in the negotiations: in so far as there has been, it is in relation to relatively minor matters. The 14 position papers issued by the UK Government have been largely judged to be unsatisfactory by the EU.

The rights of EU citizens already in the UK would be protected by the UK courts who would be able to take into account ECJ judgments.

She correctly said that regulatory issues are going to be crucial. But what does this mean in practice: for example, will we still follow EU guidance on allowable active ingredients in pesticides? She also envisaged that a disputes settlement mechanism would be necessary, but what form this (presumably quasi-judicial) body would take was not specified.

She said that the UK's 'fundamentals' were good, but I would not say that of our productivity problems or of real wages (which in part are held back by poor productivity).

Journalists' questions

These provided a little more illumination, although what was not answered was often significant.

Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC drew an admission that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' still remained a premise of UK policy. This could end up with what in effect amounted to a partial economic blockade of the UK simply by using the pinch point of the Channel ports.

The prime minister did not answer a question about whether we would remain in the EEA in the implementation/transition period.

Asked if we had got a single concession from the EU in the negotiations, she said we had got several, but did not specify one.

Asked by the FT if we would abide by new EU rules and regulations passed in the transition phase, she said that would be a matter for negotiation.

Now we have to wait for the reaction of the EU and member states. It is a step forward if Britain can work out what it wants from the negotiations, at least in general terms, but it takes two to tango.

One of the oddities of the event was that it did not place in the beautiful church of Santa Maria Novella as advertised, but in a disused police training academy nearby. It also occurred to me that Clement Attlee could have done the whole speech in Italian, indeed he did deliver a political speech in Italy in the country's language.

Who represents business?

Dethroned guru: some reports suggest that he has lost the beard.

Dave Cameron's government tended to have an over cosy relationship with big business. When Theresa May came into office, it was apparent that she wanted to distance herself from big business as part of her appeal to the just about managing, although many suspect it was eminence grise Nick Timothy who was really behind this stance.

In any event the May Government's relationship with business has subsequently blown hot and cold. Business (by and large) wasn't happy about Brexit in the first place, but has been even less unhappy since then about the uncertainty that has been created (secret deals for Japanese car manufacturers aside).

The CBI has had an up and down relationship with governments. It was at the peak of its persuasive power in the tripartite structures used by both Conservative and Labour governments in the 1970s. Mrs Thatcher regarded them as corporatism incarnate and preferred to talk to the more ideologically sound Institute of Directors. They were rehabilitated under John Major and were seen as on message by Tony Blair who wanted to make New Labour 'the natural party of business'.

Now it has kicked off again. It started when Downing Street tried to get companies to voice their support for the Government's exit strategy which they were understandably reluctant to do. The stance taken on immigration has upset some companies.

Further offence has been caused by the failure to invite leading business lobby groups to a meeting at Chevening, the country residence available to Brexiteer ministers. The CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have all been excluded. Senior business people are expected to attend, but there is some suspicion in business circles that it is a public relations exercise to show that Government is 'listening' to business.

I think there is a possible alternative explanation. When I was involved in the Organization of Business Interests project in the 1980s, the German leadership (Wolfgang Streeck) were preoccupied with the German associative state model which they saw as the norm. I had an uphill struggle to persuade them that in the US and the UK, a company state model tended to prevail with direct interactions between big companies and government being the norm. I also pointed out that big companies were forming government relations divisions to make their operations more sophisticated.

One interpretation of what is going on is that the Government is simply adhering to the British company state model and dealing direct with companies.

BTW, the FT had a very interesting article on the role of Vereine in producing a particular political culture in Germany recently: Clubby Germans

The designated adult?

Philip Hammond is suddenly the flavour of the weekend as a possible successor to Theresa May. First, The Economist Bagehot column ran a favourable portrayal under the title 'The Designated Adult' and today the Sunday Times is running with a story that he could be an 'interim' prime minister for two years with David Davis as deputy prime minister.

Bagheot argues that 'spreadsheet Phil' is a 'serious man for serious times'. No one doubts that he is serious: he reminds me of an old style bank manager who tells you can't have a loan for your business. Bagehot admits that he is 'emotionally buttoned up', but argues that he is a smarter version of Mrs May. Is this what is needed?

One British politics expert makes a good point when he tweeted, 'He has the same dull qualities as John Major. This could be a benefit in interesting times.'

The underlying problem is that the Conservatives don't have a suitable successor. Bozza, or at least his people, gave offence by going out 'on manoeuvres' immediately after the election. Admittedly, if he reached the last two, the activists would probably vote him in.

David Davis is a strong Brexiteer and has been a contrarian over the years. Amber Rudd would have a chance if she didn't have a wafer thin majority. People are then reduced to looking at the likes of Priti Patel!

What may happen is that Theresa May stays longer than anticipated. The plan is to have a long recess with Parliament not meeting again until October which would rule out the election then that so many believe in.

The Major premiership

Yesterday I attended a book launch at Liverpool University's impressive London premises for a book on the Major premiership to which I contributed. Contributors were invited to make presentations.

A view that emerged was that John Major was more successful than he appeared at the time, also a theme in the book. For example, he did much of the heavy lifting on Northern Ireland, although Tony Blair took much of the credit.

Professor Lord Norton pointed out that he was actually the third longest serving continuous prime minister of the last hundred years (the 2017 date excludes Asquith).

One view was that it takes a good jockey to ride a difficult horse, but perhaps there had been too much emphasis on the horse in terms of the political context at the time.

Major was first elected in 1979 and hence never served in opposition. He had no opportunity to prepare to be prime minister and to think through what he wanted to do. He fell into the pragmatic category of Conservative prime ministers. His lack of principle and philosophy was to some extent his undoing. However, he did have deep Conservative instincts as well as being pragmatic.

One speaker drew a comparison with Theresa May, asking what does she believe in? The electorate seem to compare her with Mrs Thatcher.

He has been one of the most successful post Prime Ministers, making rare and judicious interventions with good timing. Of course, in a way that is faint praise. It is rather like saying Jimmy Carter was a better post president than he was president.

His long autobiography was one of the best written by a prime minister since Churchill and was characterised by his dry wit.

The book concludes, 'In history, Major is not a towering figure like Attlee or Thatcher, but nor is he a failure like Balfour or Eden, nor a footnote in the party's evolution like Bonar Law or Douglas Hume.'

'Spreadsheet' Phil is weakened but safe

The relationship between the prime minister and the chancellor of the exchequer is the most crucial one in British government, but it hasn't been studied very systematically, although I attempted a typology in my Economic Policy in Britain.

'Spreadsheet' Phil Hammond has suffered a blow to his reputation after he was forced to withdraw his increase in national insurance charges for the self-employed. The expressions of studied neutrality on those around him as he made his statement yesterday told their own story.

The line from Downing Street is that the Chancellor was warned beforehand about the political risks of the increase, but felt he had to go ahead to meet new spending demanded by the prime minister. Indeed, the Treasury line is that the prime minister and her aides are too keen to spend additional money, although something had to be done to provide additional funding for social care. Quite how the £2 billion hole in what was a fiscally balanced budget is going to be repaired remains to be seen. The Government has boxed itself in by its manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, VAT or national insurance, the main means of raising revenue.

In the longer run, something is going to have to be done about the erosion of the tax base by the growing numbers of self-employed, some a by-product of the digital economy, but many of them attracted by the tax benefits which include allowances not available to the employed. Employers also benefit from not having to pay NICs. However, it would have been surely better to wait for the results of the review being conducted by Matthew Taylor which will also look at the narrower range of benefits received by the self-employed. Certainly, Phil Hammond did not display much political awareness.

In the longer run, there is a need to look at the rationale of separating national insurance and income tax. National insurance is another form of income tax, but one not applied to particular groups such as the elderly. Whether any party would be prepared to tackle this particular hot potato is open to question.

What is the immediate political fallout from this U-turn? It shows that the Government is vulnerable to determined resistance by small groups of backbenchers, given its slim majority. School funding formulas will be the next target. It also showed once again that Jeremy Corbyn is unable to take advantage of government errors.

The SNP economy spokesman suggested that relations between No. 10 and No. 11 could revert to the days of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. That will not happen because Phil Hammond has no ambitions to be prime minister. He is a Derek Heathcoat-Amory rather than a Gordon Brown. From Theresa May's point of view, it suits her to have a weakened chancellor beholden to her so his job is safe for now.

What does 'Brexit means Brexit' mean?

One month after the referendum, this article suggests that the mood in the country is similar to that after the Stuart restoration, an acceptance of what has happened. Meanwhile, it is necessary to deconstruct the statement: 'Brexit means Brexit': What does Brexit mean?

The arrival of Aston Villa Toryism?

Theresa May's joint chief of staff is Nick Timothy, an avid Aston Villa fan. Here, he draws lessons for politics from Villa's relegation: Lessons to be learned