Monday’s speech and today’s announcement show them choosing their ground for the next election. And since Hunt may find no money for further tax cuts next spring, the option of a May general election is opening up.
The Chancellor, who was watched by his wife and children, indicated that he will take no risks.
“Targeted investments will ensure the UK remains competitive in sectors where we’re already leaders and innovators in sectors where we’re not.”
Hunt should raise his sights from South West Surrey, and focus on tax cuts that would bring the greatest relief to the greatest number.
There is also a moral point: if someone works, they should be the main beneficiary of their labour, rather than being forced to give most of their extra earnings to the Government.
Although politicians like to elide them, long-term thinking and putting difficult things off until tomorrow are not the same thing.
Such as: reductions for business, such capital allowances to promote investment. And reductions on earnings, such as cuts to National Insurance.
There is a limit to what can fairly and sensibly be achieved by raising other taxes and cutting public spending – especially when it comes to pay.
At the very least, we need an Office for Economic Growth, as proposed by both Kemi Badenoch in her leadership bid and the former Treasury minister, Lord Agnew.
My guess is that she is too smart to allow the worst case scenario to happen. To do that, however, she is going to have to move swiftly from focusing on winning the confidence of Conservative MPs and party members to winning the confidence of the markets.
The effect of benefit policy changes on the incomes of working-age adults and children since 2010 has been an average loss of £375 per year compared with a boost to pensioners of £510 per year.
Once taxation and National Insurance were deducted, his take-home pay had increased by £15 a month.
The first of a series of five articles on ConservativeHome this week about the main challenges that await the new Prime Minister.