Between 1997 and 2005, public sector spending rose from £336 billion to £517 billion a year. But its output has increased little, so its productivity has fallen dramatically.
Each side in the Brexit debate regards its position as the only one a sane person could take, while the other side’s arguments are madly exaggerated and provocative.
When we first increased, and then doubled, this budget, it improved many people’s lives. Reversing that would be a retrograde step.
The Electoral Reform Society calculates that a tiny change in votes would have given May a bare majority last spring. But how much difference would this have made?
The famous four-year ban on benefits was watered down to homeopathic proportions during the EU negotiation. Leaving will allow for the real thing.
The Chancellor has not always been well treated by his neighbour, and deserves support over public spending. But he has mishandled his internal position over Brexit.
We have allowed our enemies to infiltrate almost every power centre that matters and delegitimise our very existence.
In the current climate, this controversial announcement seems reasonably unsurprising. The issue is by no means straightforward, however.
We must design a conservatism that appeals to both.
They will want to ask themselves if they really want to spurn last year’s referendum result and the Party’s manifesto commitment.
It was the brainchild of Rab Butler, set up to educate Tory members. 54,000 Conservative activists, agents and other students took courses.
Having attacked EEA membership as a bad deal during the referendum, they now pretend it is a good idea in the hope of preventing Brexit.
If the Conservatives spoke a progressive alliance, and meant it, they might be able to make some progress – and break down virulent anti-Toryism.
He wouldn’t have let Cash and Fox, Johnson and Rees-Mogg seize the agenda. He would have fought Farage’s populism as he fought that of Powell.