Sunak agreed with Rees-Mogg and Davis that bank accounts must not be denied to anyone for exercising their lawful right to free speech.
The measure is just the tip of the British state’s anti-family iceberg. But as with so many of our other problems, it commands strong (if short-sighted) public support.
The first article in a new series on ConHome about how government might be made smaller, taxpayers better off and and society stronger – through strong families, better schools and good jobs.
One ex-minister described the corporation tax rise to me as “categorically the wrong decision”. But the same old question for backbenchers remains: what will you sacrifice for tax cuts?
We are absurdly reluctant to talk about the policies needed to encourage the birth of more children.
Pandemic and war, like two horsemen of the Apocalypse, leave the Chancellor scrabbling for a response.
This new government seems to want to concentrate its energies on giving Britain a cutting edge. Will it succeed where others have failed?
Can have a bold enough economic policy that people in these newly gained seats can see the difference in five years’ time?
All these ‘family friendly policies’ are offered to mothers only if they agree to hand over care of their children to external settings and get out of the home.
By putting money into the hands of parents, in effect, such help would help to drive the demand for childcare of all kinds, formal and informal.
For me, the most concerning thing wasn’t being behind among the very young, but being behind among everyone under age 47.
If one of a couple claiming the marriage allowance becomes a higher rate taxpayer, there is a 23,800 per cent marginal tax rate on the first penny over the threshold.
The third article in a new series on ConHome about how government might be made smaller, taxpayers better off and and society stronger – through strong families, better schools and good jobs.