Ross Clark

The Environmental and Rural Affairs select committee is surely right that the government imposed the inheritance tax changes on farmland without proper consultation – and ignored the likelihood that they will cause serious hardship for family farms. Never mind the threshold which Rachel Reeves claims will mean most farms can still be passed on IHT-free – something questioned by the NFU and other critics – the new rules will inevitably drive many larger farms out of business when the current generation passes on. But is there really any point in what the committee is proposing: that the changes are simply delayed for a year?

If the consequences of Labour’s heavy losses in the local elections were not already clear, they became so in this morning’s press conference to relaunch the government’s migration policy. Reversing years of generally friendly attitudes towards migration, dating back to Tony Blair’s day – when the UK opened its doors to migrant workers from Eastern Europe seven years ahead of most EU countries – Keir Starmer has unashamedly tried to reposition Labour as an anti-immigration party. He lambasted the Conservatives for saying they would reduce migration before trebling it, and repeatedly used the Leave campaign’s slogan ‘take back control’.

We had the shock of ‘Liberation day’ when punitive tariffs were levied on imports from virtually every country in the world. That was the destructive part of Donald Trump’s trade war. Now we enter phase two: trying to put things back together again. The announcement of trade deal with a ‘big and highly-respected country’ (believed to be the UK) on Thursday morning is significant not just in itself but because Trump added the suggestion that this will be ‘the first of many’. His strategy has become clear: last month’s tariffs were shock therapy intended to precipitate a round of trade deals which would rebalance trade in America’s favour. They were not intended as a permanent fixture – at least not at the levels announced on 2 April. We don’t know the details yet.

Wasn’t a trade deal with India supposed to be one of the big gains from Brexit – an example of how Britain, once free from the protectionist grip of the EU, could go ‘out into the world’ and free up trade with fast-growing economies, rather than be stuck trading with Europe’s stagnant ones? Markets certainly like the Anglo-India trade deal announced by the government on Tuesday. Sterling is up sharply against the euro and the dollar, signalling that investors are feeling positive about the prospects for a freer-trade Britain. Car manufacturers and the Scotch Whisky Association are pretty pleased, too, given that it means the end of punitive – indeed, positively Trumpian – tariffs on UK exports to India. So why, then, have the Conservatives received the news so sourly?

Rachel Reeves may have helped run up a £151 billion deficit in the past 12 months (with a little help from Jeremy Hunt), but for some people it is not nearly enough. A snapshot into Reeves’s world is provided by the Resolution Foundation today, which has claimed that Reeves’s plan for £100 billion of additional capital spending over the course of this parliament will not nearly be enough, and that most of it will simply be swallowed up reversing ‘Tory cuts’. In a report entitled Capital Gains, it says that Reeves won’t really have an extra £100 billion to spend in her spending review; when cuts to budgets are taken into account it will mean only an extra £20 billion of money available.

Never was there more truth in the old adage about every organisation that is not specifically right-wing eventually becoming left-wing. The pay review bodies which are supposed to provide independent advice to the government on public sector pay have become a menace. They have become advocates for trade unions and care not a jot about the taxpayer. Teaching and nursing unions are threatening strikes if the government does not accept the recommendations of pay review bodies. The one concerned with teachers’ pay has suggested a 4 per cent rise and the one regarding nurses’ pay is suggesting over 3 per cent. They may seem modest rises, except that inflation is down to 2.6 per cent and productivity in the public sector has gone into reverse. Moreover, the government borrowed £16.

It’s official: subjecting oil and gas companies to a 78 pence tax rate (which is corporation tax plus the government’s windfall tax) doesn’t increase energy prices in the UK. That is what Ed Miliband told us on Sky News this morning, so it must be true. He will no doubt be hoping that we don’t look at the figures published by his own department which show that gas consumers in Britain pay an average of 10.17 pence per kilowatt-hour while US consumers – where the oil and gas industry is encouraged rather than taxed to near-extinction – pay the equivalent of 4.04 pence. Sky's @WilfredFrost questions the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband on whether UK gas prices would decrease if the tax rate of 78% on energy companies was lowered by the government. https://t.