Ross Clark

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.

So, Ukip is finished. So says Matthew Parris in the Times this morning, as well as Marina Hyde in the Guardian – who takes Paul Nuttall’s declaration that he is ‘going nowhere’ in a slightly different way that he intended. The emerging narrative of Thursday’s by-elections is that Labour had an appalling night from which it will take years to recover, but that Ukip is finished for good. Even Farage has given up on his baby. As Matthew puts it: ‘Ukip’s driving spirits are concluding that the time approaches for the party to die’. I have no capital invested in Ukip. I don’t care a great deal whether it dies or thrives. But I can see there is one thing wrong with the above narrative: it is not consistent with the figures.

It has been clear for some time that the pre-referendum warnings made by Bank of England governor Mark Carney were wide of the mark. Last May, he said that a vote for Brexit would pose an ‘immediate and significant threat’ to the UK economy, increasing unemployment, hitting growth, possibly to the point of recession. Today, however, the bank effectively admits that it was still being far too gloomy about the economy even last November. It upgraded its forecast for economic growth in 2017 from 1.4 per cent (as announced in the Autumn statement) to two per cent – saying that consumer spending has been stronger than expected and that the global economy as a whole has been performing better. The wonder is now why on Earth the Bank of England kept interest rates at 0.