Well I got that wrong. I thought the Tories would have to repeal an act of parliament to undo "Osborne's stupid law" which established a "five year tax lock", but they drafted it more cleverly and in alignment with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. It was the 2015 manifesto that Philip Hammond fell foul of when he tried to raise national insurance contributions for the self-employed, but the promise in that manifesto resulted in the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Act 2015
which specifies that the limit is removed by a general election, even an early election, though it was assumed to last until 2020, the "correct" date for a new parliament. The same limit for income tax and VAT was implemented in a Finance Act, which can be superseded by another Finance Act.
Liberal Democrat manifesto time
Unfashionably, Tim Farron's manifesto party was scheduled for the evening, so there had to be statements and the actual publication at midday so people had something to talk about.
Former energy secretary of state Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton, majority to beat 2,834) came out to do an early shift. He last appeared to deride the idea of an energy price cap, which prompted Private Eye to recall his recent career. After losing his seat in 2015 Davey spent time working for EDF's PR firm, which weakened confidence even further in the system for reviewing ex-ministers' conflicts of interest, then started an energy consultancy and joined the board of a community energy company
The Victoria Derbyshire programme made do with long memories and the tasters the party had put out over the previous few days. And the topic? LibDems, what's the point? Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Baroness, no majority and no vote on 8 June) faced two former LD voters.
Tuition fees (the LibDems could have abstained, but Vince Cable was trapped in a dream job and given no way out by Cameron and Osborne) and NHS reorganisation (it wasn't in Cameron's or Clegg's manifesto or the coalition agreement) offered two strong lines of attack, but is the main problem with coalitions themselves? We're not used to them and don't understand that nobody can get everything they want, even the Tories, so an accusation of betrayal is always bubbling under the surface. If only the current election could make one necessary again...
A Conservative interlude
Right at the beginning of this carnival, Philip Hammond and David Davis came out with a retro bomb backdrop to tear into all the things Labour had said over the last two years that could possibly be represented as election pledges. It didn't matter that some of them had obviously passed by or might be contradicted by others, there was a big number at the bottom of the column, just right to back the "Labour is not economically credible" theme.The day after Labour's actual manifesto appeared the Tories ran a repeat performance (Sky's Adam Boulton remarked that they were using a rare press conference for this attack on Labour). This time the backdrop was standard #MrsME and the woman herself had replaced Davis in the cast. The pair proceeded to extract numbers from Labour's workings and deploy them to demonstrate Corbyn and McDonnell's irresponsibility.
For the many not the few and its associated costings document certainly leave questions unanswered but Hammond needed a big number. He produced it by glossing over the difference between day to day spending and investment then showing that the proposed tax rises couldn't pay for the total. The line he then produced was that this "catalogue of chaos" demonstrates that Labour "lack basic competence and credibility".
Then it was time for #MrsME to deliver the "#StrongAndStable™ leadership of me and my team" which will "guarantee the right Brexit deal" which "locks in" economic security, and chancellor-for-now Hammond to flourish "a plan for an ideological few leading to economic chaos for the many".
What did the world take away from this little divertissement? Quite likely just that big number and the silly label "black hole", because press questions on the detail were overshadowed by an apparent failure by the prime minister to guarantee Hammond's job after a Tory victory. She also shrugged off a question about trusting President Trump.
Hammond perhaps gave away some of his concerns when he said "a strong economy requires a good Brexit" and that the challenge today is how to raise tax at all in a global/digital economy. #MrsME dodged a repeat question from the previous day when she apparently twice failed to answer a father's plea for help with making ends meet. She also claimed that sterling had been falling before the referendum vote, which raised a few eyebrows.
May now pretending that sterling fall isn't down to Brexit. That's not BoE view.— Rafael Behr (@rafaelbehr) May 17, 2017
At last, a manifesto
Little Timmy Farron's manifesto comes in a slightly subdued shade of orange and opens with his now familiar "I want to lead an effective opposition" after this election "that has been called by Theresa May, very cynically, with the sole purpose of putting the Tories in a position where they can do what they like unchecked" and in the face of "a complete absence of real opposition from Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party". Good luck with that.We then go on to the LibDems' demand for a "second referendum", or what they would see as the first referendum on a new question. Whether there might be two or more separate questions (withdrawal agreement, trade agreement(s), others) and therefore a series of decisions to be made we don't yet know.
Dick Newby (Liberal Democrat, baron, no majority and no vote on 8 June) was sent out several times to back this proposition. Andrew Neil poured scorn on it because "the 48%" no longer exists, so the LibDems no longer have a constituency. It's hardly astonishing that opinions have shifted over the last eleven months. I bet both Leave and Remain camps have split into the still committed, the "just get on with it", the "never that bothered really" and those who've changed their minds in the light of events.
But no division of opinion is ever final, and the boundaries of those groups will change over coming months as negotiations finally get going. It's perfectly possible that, as information feeds back from the talks (or as #MrsME shows her natural aversion to transparency and we hear what's going on from Brussels only) Brexit as a whole, or various aspects of it, will become less or more popular.
A "second referendum" which seems unrealistic now might be laughed out of court completely or begin to look like the obvious choice as the months pass, and it might well be useful to have voices in parliament who are not frightened to make the case.
The idea of putting an extra penny on each of the existing rates of income tax, producing 21%, 41% and 46% bands, to raise extra money for the NHS and social care has been in the air for a couple of weeks now. It seems every party will put forward a very similar health prospectus - emphasis on mental health, coordination with social care, keeping people out of hospital where possible. There will be differing emphases and levels of credibility but voters will be left scratching their heads about hard divisions based on apparently little difference.
Putting a few billion extra into education is not unique to the LibDems but trebling the Early Years Pupil Premium probably will be. Similarly, opposition to selective schools will be a shared objective while "giving local authorities proper democratic control over admissions and new schools" might be clearer than Labour's "joined-up policies".
Labour (and others) will hardly differ from proposals to "boost the economy with a major programme of capital investment aimed at stimulating growth" of "eliminating the deficit on day-to-day spending by 2020 to control the national debt, and then borrowing only to invest". Labour would "insulate four million homes" while Farron's emphasis is on "ensuring that four million properties receive insulation retrofits by 2022, prioritising fuel-poor households".
Lib Dems are admirably specific on immigration and asylum - "making the positive case for immigration", opposing "any attempts to scrap the Human Rights Act or withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights" and offering "sanctuary to 50,000 people over the lifetime of the next parliament and reopening the Dubs scheme to take 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children from Europe". People will know exactly what they're voting for, or against.
Votes at 16, more devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, "devolution on demand" and a "fair voting system in local government and Westminster" will be no surprise, though the mention of "preventing evasion of constituency election spending limits" will spark a few wry smiles.
Saboteurs department
Why would there be so much empty office space in London?Available office space in London rose 36% last year and a further 19% in Q1(!) on new devpment + tenants moving or downsizing. Crikey.— Simon Jack (@BBCSimonJack) May 17, 2017
On a day which began with ONS figures showing that unemployment has fallen to 4.6%, the lowest since 1975, and at a time of restricted wages and rising inflation, Campbell Robb of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation was interviewed on the BBC. He came out with what might turn into a good soundbite: Employment is the best way out of poverty, but it could be the second or third job which actually does it.
And finally, not so much a saboteur as a seasoned observer...
in my opinion there is too much going on— Perfume Genius (@perfumegenius) March 21, 2016
