Fraser Nelson

We learn this morning that George Osborne is planning a tax cut for the middle class, by raising the earnings threshold for the 40p tax. Of course, this was raised automatically in the Labour years (in line with RPI inflation) and even tricksy Gordon Brown never billed it as a tax cut. It’s only a tax cut if the threshold rises faster than average wages (i.e., the green lie above). If the threshold is frozen, or falls at lower rate the average earnings, then it’s a tax rise. This point is often lost on broadcasters, and HM Treasury is in no rush to explain things. So keep your eyes on this: it seems certain that Osborne will raise the threshold, but unless it’s rising faster then earnings then it ain’t a tax cut.

Let’s face it: George Osborne's pledge to save £12 billion from welfare over two years was never really credible. He never told us where the savings would come from, and it seemed as if he didn't really know. So tonight’s news, that the Chancellor has cut this to £8bn and given himself an extra year (or two) to make the full £12bn, is welcome. listen to ‘Nick Robinson: Osborne will soften his £12bn welfare cuts.

'They are just as you hope they’d be,' said my colleague Damian Thompson midway through our readers’ tea party today. I knew what he meant: we were actually getting to meet the people we work for, the people we imagine when we’re commissioning or writing stories. You build up a fairly clear idea what they’re like – and what they’re not like. There’s no typical age: today we welcomed readers from 25 to 85. They come from a wide range of backgrounds; architects, students, lawyers, priests, financiers. And from all over the country: I met subscribers who drove down from Oldham and even Glasgow to join us today. Taki was there, as was Andrew Neil, Mary (as in 'Dear Mary') Killen and those of us lucky enough to work in 22 Old Queen St.

“Inequality has gotten much worse in the United Kingdom,” declared the Nobel laureate Joe Stiglitz when he was on Andrew Marr’s Start the Week last month (clip below). It’s one of those things that ‘everyone knows’ which is (to put it politely) not supported by the data. The latest inequality data came out today, taking us up to 2013/14. There are various measurements, but you get the overall picture (above). As David Cameron said in Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, inequality is lower than the levels inherited under Labour. There has been a lot of talk about surging economic inequality recently, and lot of books about the problem. But not much evidence.

The Labour leadership contest is compulsive watching for conservatives with a taste in schadenfreude. Jeremy Corbyn’s inclusion reminds everyone how the party may have succeeded in expelling the electable Blairites, but not the unelectable lefties. Corbyn pulled out of being interviewed by Andrew Neil for BBC Sunday Politics today, citing a last-minute emergency. But we were treated to Diane Abbott instead. It was a case study in Labour's denial of reality. “We should be making sure that the people with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden,” she said. That’s precisely what George Osborne did when he cut the top rate of tax (below). The best-paid 1pc, 0.1pc and 0.

There should always be celebration when a sinner repents, and so it’s great to see George Osborne’s belated conversion to the cause of budget surpluses. As the above graph shows, he has not seemed in a rush to hit surplus himself – giving him many more years of increasing the national debt. James Forsyth summed it up brilliantly: Osborne is the St Augustine Chancellor: give me fiscal responsibility, but not yet! And today, he will add something: when I get there, let's make it illegal for anyone not to balance the budget again! In economics, as in much else, converts are always the most zealous. Osborne's new plan—to have surpluses mandated by law—makes a lot of sense.

As the Chancellor prepares his post-election Budget, he faces an obvious opportunity. Throughout the last general election campaign, we heard from a great many people advocating higher taxes. And it’s not all vindictive: many, like the writer Polly Toynbee, would actually be liable for a higher tax on the 1pc. A significant number of wealthy people in Britain do actually want to give the government more of their money and at present, there is no easy way for them to do so. Strikingly the singer, Charlotte Church, recently declared that: "I have paid all my tax since I was 12 years old, and I would certainly be happy if the rate was 60 per cent or 70 per cent. I wouldn’t move away, I wouldn’t have an offshore account.

So when Nigella Lawson popped up on television to give Britain’s results, what had Britain decided? The UK vote is a 50/50 split between jury and televoting - and the Eurovision authorities have just given the breakdown. They show that British televoters went for the cute, joyful Lithuanian duet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r13a2VUTajU Our second choice was Poland, whose rather lovely Monika Kuszyńska did pretty badly overall, finishing in 23rd place with just ten points. She would have been given ten points from the UK alone had there been no jury. (The UK entry finished 24th overall with five points; voting data shows the Polish public thought it was as bad as everyone else did). https://www.youtube.com/watch?

“I’m the change candidate,” said Andy Burnham, settling down to the consolidation phase of his leadership bid. Chuka Umunna is out, so he is now the bookies’ favourite. He faces a conundrum: the brains of Labour want to tack to the centre, the money (ie, the unions) want to keep it to the left. So how can he keep both happy? Andrew Marr this morning asked Burnham if he was happy to be the union candidate. “I’m the unifying candidate,” he said. He admitted that he has spoken to Unite’s Len McClusky – the union Godfather - but only as part of his attempt to “build support from all parts of the Labour Party.” And Charlie Falconer, Blair’s ex-flatmate, is backing him – so surely that’s enough?