Ross Clark

What is the point of government passing a law to stop it doing something when it can just as easily repeal it? If George Osborne were still to find himself Chancellor after the election I can’t see that we would feel any more bound to abide by a law fixing the rates of income tax, National Insurance and VAT than he would by a pledge to the same effect. If he ever fancied notching up VAT in a future budget all it would take is a clause in the finance bill excusing himself from such a law. In any case, we haven’t yet seen the text of the tax-fixing bill which David Cameron proposes today.

I agree with much of what Iain Duncan Smith said on Sky TV this morning: that zero-hours contracts should be rebranded ‘flexible-hours contracts’, that they are good for work-life balance and are often very popular with those who are employed in this way – who are, as a result, able to do such things as combine working with studying. But IDS would have a much easier job of convincing the electorate on this had he gone further and recommended that one particular group of workers was switched to the contracts: MPs. I am not trying to belittle the job of being a parliamentarian, nor try to assert that it is on a skill level with shelf-stacking. Scrutinising legislation is a skilled activity which deserves to be paid well.

'The dream of a property-owning democracy is alive,' David Cameron will say today as he launches the Conservative manifesto, promising to extend the right to buy to all 1.3 million housing association tenants. Why, then, if he wants to promote a property-owning democracy is he also proposing to raise allowances for inheritance tax, allowing people to inherit homes worth up to £1 million without paying a penny in tax? Inherited wealth is a huge factor in the concentration of property-wealth in ever fewer hands. This is what happens: middle-aged couple inherit large family home. They then sell it and reinvest the money in several buy-to-let properties, outbidding in the process several first time buyers who are as a result forced to rent a home instead.

Nicola Sturgeon has been described as a rock star politician. In Tuesday’s STV debate she looked like one who is suffering from second album syndrome. Having impressed a UK-wide audience in the seven-leader ITV debate last week, her reception at the Scottish version was far more muted, with some instant polls suggesting a narrow victory for Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy. A dispassionate observer might place Sturgeon third, behind Murphy and an impressively plucky Ruth Davidson. It takes something to stand before a Scottish audience, where the Tory brand isn’t just toxic but radioactive, and earn applause for making the case to reintroduce prescription charges.

I have never been impressed by round robin letters, so if Ed Miliband had shrugged off the letter to the Daily Telegraph this week signed by 103 businessmen with the words: ‘if they have got something to say why can’t they speak for themselves rather than bleating like a flock of sheep’ he would have gained my respect. If Labour had to counter it with a round robin letter of its own it might at least have tried to find 100 businessmen of its own. Instead it rustled up a bizarre letter of its own. Complaining about zero hours contracts it declared:  'We come from all walks of life, this is what Britain looks like.' But when you read the signatories below you realise just how small Labour’s circle has become. All walks of North London, it ought to read.

The most remarkable poll of the week was the one which suggested the British public find Ed Miliband more of a toff than David Cameron. It takes something to out-toff an Old Etonian with a patrician air and liking for green wellies. But is it so very surprising? Ed has, after all, just shown himself to be on the friend of wealthy idlers, by hinting that the brunt of tax rises in a Labour government would fall instead on those who work for a living. Ed Miliband began well in the last Prime Minister's Questions before the election. He noted David Cameron's direct answer to James Landale’s direction question on his future as prime minister and then posed the Prime Minister a direct question of his own: could he rule out a rise in VAT?

The House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee wants a moratorium on fracking so that what it calls the ‘huge uncertainties’ of its impact on the environment can be resolved. If they hadn’t noticed, we already have had a moratorium on fracking. All activity ceased in 2011 after a couple of minor earth tremors near Blackpool were linked to exploratory drilling by Cuadrilla in the area. What the company now wants to do – and in which it is being frustrated at present by Lancashire’s planners – is to resume exploration, having changed their procedures in response to the tremors. If there are ‘huge uncertainties’ over fracking, how would they ever be resolved without testing the technology?

Peter Mandelson’s famous quote about New Labour being intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich has a suffix that is often mischievously omitted: he added ‘so long as they pay their taxes’. But there are a few more things which many Labour members would have put on the end: so long as you don’t earn it by advising Central Asian dictatorships, so long as you don’t hang around with Russian oligarchs, so long as you don’t make it from the Saudis. Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson got filthy rich all right. But the whiff they gave off while doing so has only served to regenerate a very Old Labour disgust of wealth.

Post-war Labour Chancellor Hugh Dalton had to resign for letting slip the contents of his Budget speech before he delivered it. Nowadays, everyone leaks in advance, including PR people. The following press release was received from the Fire Brigades Union at 11 am, giving its 'reaction' to a speech which did not start until 12.30: 'This government is promising more of the same – austerity for workers, so they can cut taxes for the rich. Firefighters want investment in the fire and rescue service, not more cuts. 'Last winter we saw widespread flooding throughout the country, but still the Westminster government refuses to give the fire and rescue service a clear statutory duty to respond to major flooding, unlike the governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland.