Ross Clark

Next Monday, while the village fair is raging outside, I will be inside working as on any other Monday morning. Will I be disappointed to miss out on a day of Mayday fun? Not a bit of it. There are only so many steam rallies one wants to attend, only so many seaside-bound traffic jams one can bear to join. I would far rather work through every bank holiday and take time off when I feel like it, when the roads aren’t full of bikers and there are fewer people out and about trying to force themselves to have fun.

One of the consequences of the early election is that Britain will find itself without a functioning parliament for six weeks at a time when arguably it has never needed one more. I am sure that many MPs will feel entitled to a holiday after yet another election campaign – or at least those who are not sent into premature retirement. But what about Parliamentary business? The Great Repeal Bill requires debate and scrutiny – and in Parliament, not the TV studio. As thing stand, Parliament will rise in the first week of May.   It will then reconvene in the middle of June only to break up for the summer recess little over a month later. It will not return until October, after the party conference season.

It isn’t clear what changed Theresa May’s mind on calling an early general election, something which, as recently as 20 March, she was adamant would not happen. But could the trigger have been nothing to do with Brexit at all? An interesting date is 16 March, when Phillip Hammond reversed the proposed increase in National Insurance on the self-employed which he had announced in his Budget only the week before. The fuss seemed to catch Hammond – and presumably Theresa May, too – by surprise. It seemed as if it simply hadn’t occurred to them that they ought to feel bound by David Cameron’s 2015 manifesto, which promised no rise in the rates of income tax or national insurance throughout the life of the Parliament.

Only the EU, an organisation with four presidents, could have two ‘chief negotiators’ charged with agreeing the terms of Britain’s departure from the EU. I am not sure, then, how seriously to take the figure of Guy Verhofstadt, a Belgian MEP who has been appointed the European Parliament’s chief negotiator. If we agree something with him, do we then have to agree it with Michel Barnier, the EU’s other ‘chief negotiator’, and if they can’t agree, which ‘chief’ is really in charge? All I know is that what we have seen from the EU’s leaders in months since Britain voted to leave the EU is a good reminder of why the country made that decision.

One looked in vain for the words 'Islamic extremist' in the Guardian’s reporting of the Westminster attack a fortnight ago. Even after Isis claimed the attacker, Khalid Masood, as one of its own, the paper declined to accept him as a terrorist motivated by religious extremism. And who knows, maybe it was right. Masood had had a violent past, even before he had converted to Islam. It is still far from clear whether he had been influenced or was controlled by an Islamist group, or whether he was a freelance operative motivated entirely by his own internal anger and frustrations. But if you are going to take that line and refuse to undertake any speculation into incidents of this kind you ought at least to be consistent. On this, the Guardian fails badly.

So, the Office of National Statistics has confirmed that the economy grew by 0.7 per cent in the last quarter of 2016, and by 1.8 per cent over the course of the year. Can we now please stop worrying about a post-Brexit recession and worry instead about an unsustainable consumer boom fed by interest rates which remain at panic levels. The bad news this morning is that the UK saving ratio – which is an estimate of the percentage of their income which households are saving – has fallen sharply from 5.3 per cent to 3.3 per cent. That takes it lower than it was a decade ago, just before the financial crash, and indeed is the lowest level measured in half a century. As Helen Nugent wrote here yesterday,  consumers are piling on credit card debt at the fastest rate in a decade.

It is one of the great mysteries of modern British politics: how public schools managed to survive three periods of Labour government with their tax breaks intact. How was it that an education secretary, Anthony Crosland, could say: ‘If it’s the last thing I do, I’m going to destroy every fucking grammar school in England, and Wales and Northern Ireland’, and yet do nothing to make life difficult for independent schools? Suzi Leather, Tony Blair’s appointment as head of the Charity Commission, demanded private schools do more to justify their charitable status.

So poisonous were the relations between Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell that no-one will have been surprised at the latter’s resignation from Ukip, nor the pleasure it generated among Farage and his supporters. It takes something to cheer the departure of your only MP; along with the funding that goes with it. Yet the irony is that in theory Farage and Carswell ought to have been soulmates in Ukip. Both are naturally social conservatives but economic liberals. In contrast to many Ukip members, neither are attracted by protectionism or anti-globalisation – two sentiments which also unite many of Donald Trump’s supporters. From what we know about the political views of Ukip members, both Farage and Carswell stick out as being a little to the right.

For once, Jeremy Corbyn was spot-on. Learning of the news that George Osborne is to be made editor of the Evening Standard he didn’t bleat about Tory domination of the press, but tweeted ‘It’s taking multi-tasking to an extreme level – what a joke’. What is wrong about Osborne’s new job is not that it confirms that the Evening Standard is a Conservative-supporting newspaper. That is there for all to see, but why does it matter when there is absolutely nothing to stop a Labour-supporting entrepreneur, or anyone else, setting up a rival London newspaper? What ought to concern all taxpayers is that we are already paying the former chancellor to do what is supposed to be a full-time job: being an MP.

Each day, I can see more clearly a pivotal line from Theresa May’s future biography: 'Ultimately, her downfall can be traced to one mistake: her failure to seek her own mandate and call and general election in the spring of 2017, when Labour was at its weakest and she was still enjoying a political honeymoon.' A fortnight ago William Hague made the case for an early election. Since then, the evidence has grown. In the past 24 hours alone the lights outside the Prime Minister’s windows have twice flashed: go to the country now, or you will regret it. The U-turn on National Insurance for the self-employed should be warning enough.

Theresa May’s announcement that the vote on raising National Insurance contributions for the self-employed will be delayed until after the publication of the Taylor Report in Modern Employment Practises in the autumn is presumably meant to reassure us that the government is taking seriously the many objections which have been levied against the policy in the 48 hours since it was announced by the Chancellor. On the other hand it might merely concentrate minds on a question which few have yet asked: just why does Theresa May have Tony Blair’s former chief policy wonk seeming to direct Conservative policy on employment? The Taylor review, set up by the Prime Minister last November, is often described as ‘independent’. Yet Matthew Taylor is not independent at all.

There is a very big winner from today’s budget. Not adults in social care, not schools, but Ukip. Philip Hammond has handed a huge political opportunity: to position itself as the party of the self-employed: the taxi driver, the brickie, the plumber, the small shop-owner. These used to be natural Tories. From today, with Hammond imposing a two per cent extra tax on their income, and breaking a manifesto commitment in the process, they will be looking for a new political home. No wonder Suzanne Evans was tweeting about the change within seconds of it being made. The Treasury’s argument for raising National Insurance Contributions on the self-employed is that the current arrangements are unfair to the employed, who pay a higher rate of NIC.

Were I a Labour party strategist I wouldn’t be too distressed by the news that the party has lost 26,000 members since last summer. On the contrary, I would regard it as the possible beginning of a very long road back to power. Until Jeremy Corbyn came along there was a received wisdom that modern political parties were becoming isolated from the views of the public as a whole because their once mass memberships had shrunk to a few party faithful. Not only has Corbyn disproved this theory, his experience suggests that the opposite might be the case: having a large membership is a hindrance to winning elections.