Uk politics

When Sir Gus O’Donnell was head of the civil service, those who worked under him would have prided themselves in the code that he was supposed to uphold: to be impartial, avoid politics and do their best to make sure the public is not misled. This morning, Sir Gus was involved in what can only be described as a systematic attempt to mislead the public about the EU and the terms in which Britain would leave. His point: that it would take more than two years to negotiate the terms of UK’s exit, and this deadline could only be prolonged with hard bargaining from hostile partners. "Obviously at the end of two years anything we haven't negotiated has to be extended by unanimity of a vote excluding us so that's a bit scary.

This time last year, Matthew Parris was about the only commentator predicting that the Tories would win a majority. In his Times column today, he says he is now beginning to think that Britain will vote ‘out’ – and he looks at the consequences. Specifically, Cameron’s likely resignation and a summer Tory leadership campaign with Boris Johnson as the favourite. It all might feel a bit premature, but Matthew Parris is one of the most prescient writers in Britain (as Spectator readers know). If Britain does vote out and Cameron quits, then Boris would be the favourite (see graph, below). And then, gloves would come off.

Why have David Cameron and George Osborne overreached? Why are so many in their own party no longer disposed to obey them? Obviously the great issue of Europe has something to do with it. But there is another factor. Victory at the last election, followed by the choice of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, has convinced too many Tories, including Mr Osborne himself, that they will be in power for ten more years at least. So they get careless and cocky. Then they make mistakes. Then they come up against the most admirable fact about parliamentary democracy, which is that you can never guarantee being in power for ten years. (You can’t even guarantee it for the prescribed five, though the iniquitous Fixed-term Parliament Act of the coalition has made this easier than before.

Are there going to be more welfare cuts or not? In an afternoon in which the government tried to calm the row following the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith, the key line that stood out was Stephen Crabb telling the Commons that ‘we have no further plans to make welfare savings beyond the very substantial savings legislated for by parliament two weeks ago’. The new Work and Pensions Secretary’s language was qualified by the Treasury, which clarified that this didn’t mean no more cuts in this parliament - just that the government didn’t have any planned. But it has become the big takeaway story from yesterday’s medley of statements. George Osborne plans to defend his Budget today as part of the wind-up session in the Commons.

David Cameron and George Osborne have got a lot to do to patch up the current Tory wars. But first they need to ensure that those wars don’t get even worse, by making the Budget battles of this week seem less potent. This, it was revealed at morning lobby briefing, will now involve allowing MPs to vote on a Budget that does not set out how the government will save £4bn that the cuts to personal independence payment were supposed to achieve. It will also involve the government not opposing the rebel amendments on the tampon tax and VAT on solar panels and insulation products. This second decision on whipping arrangements has been made out of absolute necessity as the government was going to lose.

Iain Duncan Smith has just given what James Forsyth refers to as a "bombshell interview" which turned into "a missile aimed at George Osborne". Ros Altmann, the pensions minister, released a statement last night that could be described as a missile aimed at Iain Duncan Smith. What's next? James Forsyth and I discuss in this podcast.

In the last few minutes, Iain Duncan Smith has released a letter of resignation from his post as Work & Pensions Secretary. The proximate cause is the Budget cuts to disability benefits. He knew about them, but had wanted a consultation paper to be published so the government could make the argument carefully, over many weeks, given that this is a hugely controversial topic. Instead, George Osborne presented the disability cuts as a £1.3 billion fait accompli in the Budget and these cuts to finance tax cuts for higher-rate earners and lowering capital gains tax. IDS said in his letter to David Cameron that this is ‘not defensible’. It was the juxtaposition, rather than the cuts on their own, that made him walk.