James Forsyth

This morning’s front pages are simply awful for the government: every single one is critical of Downing Street. But this morning everyone in Westminster is again talking about Labour and the pressure on Ed Miliband. The Bradford West by-election has, at least for the moment, changed the subject away from pasties and petrol. Bradford West was a sensational result. Galloway, the former Labour MP, increased the Respect vote by more than 17,000 votes. For Labour to lose a by-election now is a major blow. They seemed to have had no answer to Galloway’s demagogic, sectional campaign. It will be little consolation to them that the Tory vote also collapsed, their share of the vote dropping by more than twenty percent.

The row over the so-called pasty tax is a proxy. It is really a row about whether David Cameron and George Osborne get what it is like to worry about the family budget each week.   In truth, I suspect that they don’t. But I think the same probably goes for Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and the vast majority of journalists. Most of the politics of class in Westminster, as opposed to the country, is the narcissism of small difference.   The best thing the coalition could do now is hold its nerve. The Budget did reveal that support for it is shallow. But, as one leading pollster said to me yesterday, if they handle the tanker strike right, they’ll be ahead again by May — the next time anyone is voting in an actual election.

It now seems as if Downing Street is moving towards releasing a list of Chequers guests. This is belated recognition of the fact that their best hope of getting beyond this story is to get everything out there. But as Francis Maude’s feisty performance in the Commons demonstrated, the Tories are not short of mud to throw at Labour. The combination of Labour’s reliance on the Unions and the Ecclestone affair means that it is hard for Labour to get on the front foot. Indeed, Tory sources are claiming that when they approached Labour to see if they would support changes to the Sunday Trading laws for the Olympics, Labour told them to talk to USDAW, the shopworkers’ union, as their position would be key to the party’s.

Cutting the 50p rate was economically the right thing to do, but the politics of it are hugely complicated. The biggest danger is that it bolsters the sense that the Conservatives are the political wing of the privileged classes. For this reason, it is particularly unfortunate for the Conservatives that it is this Sunday that The Sunday Times has done an expose (£) on how potential donors were being lured with the offer of supper with Cameron and Osborne and the chance to influence policymaking. Labour are already trying to link the two, asking the Prime Minister to ‘provide details of all donors who have made representations, both written and orally, on changes to the 50p tax rate’.

Jonathan Freedland’s column in The Guardian today, explaining why he can’t vote for Ken Livingstone, is a remarkably direct piece of journalism. Freedland states that he ‘can no longer do what I and others did in 2008, putting to one side the statements, insults and gestures that had offended me, my fellow Jews and — one hopes — every Londoner who abhors prejudice’. Now, as Paul Goodman argues, we shouldn’t overstate the importance of a traditionally Labour supporting Guardian columnist coming out against Ken Livingstone. But Freedland’s reasons for doing so are ones that, I suspect, will resonate with a significant section of opinion. The issue with Livingstone is that his politics are sectional.

David Cameron’s plan for a minimum price for alcohol is one that several of his Cabinet colleagues, including the Health Secretary, have grave reservations about. But the Prime Minister’s personal enthusiasm for the policy has overridden these reservations. To my mind, a minimum price for alcohol is not a good idea. I expect that the effect of it will be to shift those who are intent on getting drunk, off beer and wine and onto spirits, whose prices will probably remain unchanged. Tory MPs also tend not to like the idea, viewing it as an unnecessary interference with the market. Indeed, I suspect there’ll be a fair few Tory backbenchers who vote against this policy in the Commons. This isn't the only political complication the idea throws up.

Today’s front pages concentrate on the so-called ‘granny tax’, the surprise of the Budget. But the real test of this Budget is going to be whether it delivers growth. If it does, then it will make a Tory majority in 2015 more likely. If it doesn’t, then the decision to cut the 50p rate will become even more politically problematic.   Given that the Budget is fiscally neutral, this growth is going to have come from either the couple of supply side measures in the Budget or by finding a way to unleash those elusive animal spirits. Indeed, I think this desire to boost confidence is one of the main reasons that the 50p rate has been cut.

The big Budget news tonight is that the personal allowance will rise to £9,205. This is a larger increase than expected and, intriguingly, will be paid for — in part — by a couple of billion more of spending cuts. So, the Lib Dems see considerable progress on their main budget priority, raising the income tax threshold to £10,000, but this will be partially funded by something Tory MPs have been calling for, more spending cuts. It also appears that the coalition will further increase the pace of its corporation tax cuts as well as introducing a new higher rate of stamp duty for £2 million plus houses. There’ll also be a slew of anti-avoidance measures to accompany the reduction in the 50p rate.

David Cameron’s speech today says all the right things about infrastructure. But the test will be whether Cameron forces these changes through the system.   Already, the planning reforms have been held up by a lengthy consultation. The government will respond to this consultation this week. But that won’t be the end of the matter. For even after the government has set its plans before parliament, there’ll be a ‘transition’ period between the old rules and the new ones.   All of which is a reminder that if Britain, and especially the capital, is going to get the extra airport capacity it so desperately needs, then decisions will have to be taken soon.