It’s the worst form of gesture politics in practice – that substitutes for the urgent need for more housing.
The pandemic has destroyed the idea that macroeconomic problems can be solved by throwing more stimulus at things.
It will, for one, open the door to numerous other interest groups, who will demand for such a policy to be maintained or used again in the future.
The Chancellor’s team reportedly wants to cut it from 20 per cent to 19 per cent in 2023. Here’s why that wouldn’t be a good idea.
Leavers and Remainers have been premature to judge this major constitutional change.
Last week, one of the many dangers of such a project became clear: the possibility of its use for rampant paternalism.
The Chancellor extolled principles that point to the possibility of meaningful pro-growth reform of how revenues are raised.
Pay is a business cost and, in reaction, profit-seeking firms will raise prices, cut worker benefits, slash services, or leave the sector if profits are squeezed.
Faced with political resistance, the Conservative Party seems to be abandoning not just the policy but its understanding of the problem.
There is nothing for productivity growth, ageing, minimum wage hikes, tailoring care to individual needs, or councils’ incentives to build more homes.
Covid-19 is likely to have lasting effects on our preferences, where and how we want to work, and where we are able to travel.
Questions have been raised about whether the visa route will truly be as liberal as some have implied
The problem is that spiralling spending demands quickly use up the options which voters don’t notice. Eventually you need other big sources of revenue,
That schooling can improve earning potential doesn’t mean that ever-more schooling is good for all kids in the aftermath of a pandemic.