The Green party has criticised Labour for not being willing to block the Rwanda bill. This is from the Green peer Jenny Jones ahead of the debate tomorrow, when peers will vote on further amendements to the bill.

This is a mess of a bill. It is illegal and nonsensical. We are being asked to indulge in another day of pointless chatter, with great legal minds drawing up detailed amendments that the government will ignore. And this is partly fuelled by the Labour party refusing to vote this bill down.

The Labour party are trying to rewrite the Salisbury Convention that says that the Lords should not stop anything in the government’s manifesto. Labour wants that to apply to all legislation passed by MPs, as the Commons is elected and the second chamber is not. Then what is the point of the Lords? Why don’t they join the Green party in calling for the Lords to be abolished and replaced by an elected second chamber?”

Labour seem to hope that when they are in government, then the Conservatives will reciprocate, but that clearly isn’t going to happen.

Labour has said that it is not constitutionally appropriate for the Lords to vote down a bill passed by the elected chamber.

In a thread on X last night Sunder Katwala, who runs the British Future thinktank, says there has been relatively little discussion of Labour’s decision not to hold up the bill. He does not go as far as Jones, in saying Labour should vote down the bill, but he suggests Labour might have been better advised to deploy aggressive delaying tactics in the Lords.

Here are some of his posts.

It is widely understood/assumed across Lords groups- but almost entirely undebated in media & politics - that Labour Party has made a tactical decision to let the government push the bill through. Rather than to use a delay threat to insist on one of these amendments (or others)

— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) March 4, 2024

It is widely understood/assumed across Lords groups- but almost entirely undebated in media & politics - that Labour Party has made a tactical decision to let the government push the bill through. Rather than to use a delay threat to insist on one of these amendments (or others)

Labour’s calculation: the risks of a “get Rwanda done” message about delaying the scheme (nb/scars of 2019) mean they need to give the government the bill *including* reviving govt chance of sending some planes to Rwanda (including removals that UK courts/ECHR would find unsafe)

A much more *consequential* ethical decision (for MPs/peers) than votes on Gaza, which are emotionally, symbolically & politically significant. But whose real world impacts are minor. Here, the real life impact is much more significant (if planes go that might not, esp unsafely)

Ethics aside, the (unexplored & undebated) politics look questionable. Are the scars of 2019 seeing Labour generals fight last electoral war & give Sunak an unexpected gift? Is giving Sunak proof of concept on Rwanda really smart to stop him blaming Labour for failing to deliver?

Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, has told GB News that Rishi Sunak did not go far enough in his speech on extremism on Friday. She claimed that parts of London were becoming “no-go areas for Jewish people” as a result of the pro-Palestinian marches and she said Sunak should have announced emergency legislation to restrict them. She explained:

We need to be holding the police to account in a better way and I would have liked to have seen an emergency law introduced to actually empower ministers and empower all of those policymakers who are responsible for this issue to actually take steps to restrict some of these marches.

This has been going on now for four months. It’s become a weekly fixture. Parts of London have become a no-go areas for Jewish people. That is totally unacceptable. We’ve seen antisemitism skyrocket.

In its recent report on the protests, the Commons home affairs committee quotes evidence from the Metropolitan police saying that, although people have been committing hate crimes in “very small numbers” during the protests, the “overwhelming majority” of people attending have behaved lawfully and peacefully.

'The time for words has come to an end, we need to see action.'

Suella Braverman calls on Rishi Sunak to introduce emergency legislation to ban certain Palestine marches.

📺 Freeview 236, Sky 512, Virgin 604
🔓 Become a GB News Member: https://t.co/mNsRsGC8ef pic.twitter.com/Xt9DUrLOp6

— GB News (@GBNEWS) March 5, 2024

The former Post Office chair Henry Staunton has revived his claim that Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, and others have spread false claims about him to justify her decision to sack him in January.

In a letter to the Commons business committee, he gave his fullest account yet of the misconduct allegation about him that was used by Badenoch to part-justify her decision to dismiss him.

In a statement to MPs last month explaining why she got rid of Staunton, Badenoch said that when Staunton was chair “a formal investigation was launched into allegations made regarding his conduct, including serious matters such as bullying” and that “concerns were brought to my Department’s attention about Mr Staunton’s willingness to co-operate with that investigation”.

Last week Staunton told the committee that it was actually Nick Read, the chief executive, who was being investigated over a misconduct allegation. He said the Post Office’s HR director had submitted an 80-page “Speak Up” whistleblowing complaint about Read, and that just one paragraph referred to him. It wrongly said he had made a politically incorrect comment, he claimed.

In his follow-up letter, now published, Staunton explained what had actually been said. He recalled:

The context of my conversation [with the HR director] was that whilst reviewing a list of shortlisted candidates for a NED [non executive director] position, I recounted, by way of example of the obstacles that I had encountered previously in my attempts to promote board diversity, a conversation I had had when I was chair of another organisation in which, a woman in a senior management role had said to me that she did not like appointing “girls” because they were, in her experience, “pains in the arses”. It was clear to the HR director at the time that I was not personally using offensive terms, if anything the opposite, and she confirmed that to me subsequently. Indeed, given the context it could not have been understood in any other way.

Staunton said the HR director used some of this language in her whistleblowing complaint, to explain how she felt she was being treated at the Post Office. She was not complaining about Staunton, he said.

He said that in a subsequent interview with Post Office investigators the HR director said the “girls” and “pains in the arses” remarks came from Staunton. He said they then used this to discredit him.

[The investigators] were clearly not interested in understanding the context of the remarks, which were quoting critically what was said by a third party on another occasion at another organisation. All they were interested in was the fact that they had stumbled on a pretext for widening the investigation to include me, which is why I can only consider this sham investigation as a stitch up …

Despite the unbelievably weak grounds for launching an investigation into me personally which was prompted by a primary complaint by the HR director against the chief executive, and the chief executive alone, I have fully cooperated with the investigation, have answered all their questions to the best of my ability, and indeed have recently attended an interview with the barrister leading the investigation. I take assertions to the contrary by both the Post Office and the Business Department very seriously indeed. To me they are further evidence of the way closing ranks and covering people’s backs have, through this entire sorry episode, been given priority over getting at the truth. I do not recognise the false equivalence between the allegations against Nick Read, some of which are serious, and the allegations against me which are flimsy in the extreme.

In a separate letter to the committee, the Post Office said that the HR director’s “Speak Up” note runs to 12 pages, not 80 pages. It is being disclosed to the committee on the assumption that confidential material will not be published. The Post Office said Staunton may have been thinking of a separate, 80-page report into someone else.

Rishi Sunak has discussed his irritation at an unmade bed as well as his bedtime habit of watching Friends reruns, in an interview with Grazia, PA Media reports. PA says:

Joined by his wife, businesswoman Akshata Murty, the prime minister answered a number of questions about household jobs ahead of International Women’s Day (March 8), including who cooks more and who is more likely to make the bed.

“We found out how the country’s most high-profile couple share domestic duties,” Grazia UK’s Instagram caption read.

Sunak cut a quieter figure than his wife, who took the lead on answering questions, with the Conservative party leader jumping in to criticise Murty’s dishwasher stacking and his children’s lack of dog-walking.

On unmade beds, Sunak said: “It bugs me, so I actually sometimes come up back into the flat from the office after we’ve all left and make the bed, because I’ll be irritated if it’s not made.”

Asked about his favourite job around the house, he replied: “Hard choice … dishwasher stacking, making [the] bed? Both have a nice, satisfying ending. Probably the bed.”

Sunak labelled his wife’s penchant for having plates in her bed when she was younger as “disgusting” and said “That’s me” when asked who is better at loading the dishwasher.

“It requires redoing after you’ve been very enthusiastic,” he told his wife.

“It creates more work. And then more goes in as a result!”

He also said he wishes his children were better at walking their dog, but admitted his wife reads more than he does.

“I’m too exhausted when I get home at the end of every day, so I watch an episode of Friends and then go to bed. It never gets old,” he said.

“We have watched the same episodes of Friends I don’t know how many times,” said Murty.

Murty also conceded that her husband is “the better cook”, although Sunak added: “It’s mainly just breakfast on a Saturday morning – Gordon Ramsay scrambled eggs.”

UPDATE: You can watch the clip here.

The Commons business committee has published a series of letters from Post Office figures relating to its marathon hearing last week where Henry Staunton, the former chair, said he was the victim of a smear campaign led by Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary.

At the weekend the Sunday Times reported that Nick Read, the Post Office chief executive, repeatedly threatened to resign unless he got a pay rise. There were suggestions that this implied he was not telling the truth when, in his evidence to the committee, he dismissed talk of his resigning.

The Sunday Times: Post Office boss said he would quit unless he got £1 million #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/OfrhIsSiw7

— George Mann (@sgfmann) March 2, 2024

In a letter now published, Read told the committee he wanted to “clarify” when he meant when he answered no in response to a question about whether he had ever tried to resign as chief executive. He said:

To reiterate the response I gave on the 27th, I have never tried to resign. Nor have I ever issued a resignation letter or resigned verbally. Like many people in highly complex roles like this one, I have suffered frustrations – many CEOs have conversations privately with appropriate people in their organisation and I am no different. However, I remain here completely committed to doing the vitally important work to support Postmasters and transform the Post Office.

Labour will end exemptions for bee-killing pesticides that have already been outlawed in the EU but which the UK government has approved for four years in a row, Daniel Zeichner, the shadow farming minister has said. Helena Horton has the story.

Downing Street has confirmed that Rishi Sunak does not favour the payment of reparations for the UK’s historic involvement in the slave trade and that he believes it is better to “look to the future”.

The PM’s spokesperson made the comment at the No 10 lobby briefing in response to a question about whether Suank thought the Church of England was right to propose creating a £1bn fund to address the legacy of slavery and in response to the fact that the wealth owned by the church today can in part be traced back to the slave trade. The spokesperson implied that Sunak was not a warm supporter of this initiative.

Asked if the church was right to propose a £1bn fund of this kind, the spokesperson replied:

It’s obviously a matter for the Church of England. For the government’s part, there is clearly no plan to pay reparations. It’s widely recognised the UK led the international efforts and was one of the first countries in the world to abolish slavery and we believe the most effective way for UK to respond to our history is to look to the future …

The UK is making a real difference in the lives of people today through things like our overseas aid programmes, including in the Caribbean and Africa where we are investing in infrastructure, security and prosperity.

The spokesperson also pointed out that, in his speech on extremism on Friday, Sunak talked about his pride in Britain’s history. The spokesperson quoted the passage from the speech where Sunak said:

No country is perfect, but I am enormously proud of the good that our country has done.

Our place in history is defined by the sacrifices our people have made in the service of our own freedom and that of others.

And when these groups tell children that they cannot - and will not - succeed because of who they are, when they tell children that the system is rigged against them or that Britain is a racist country, this is not only a lie, but a cynical attempt to crush young dreams, and turn impressionistic minds against their own society.

More than 400 people arrived in the UK in small boats yesterday – the highest number crossing the Channel in a day so far this year, PA Media reports. The figures came out as the Home Office announced that the UK and France will lead a “customs partnership” involving other European countries intended to disrupt the supply of materials used to assemble small boats.

PA says:

Home Office figures show 401 people made the journey in seven boats. This suggests an average of around 41 people per boat.

It comes after 327 migrants crossed the Channel on Sunday in eight boats, meaning 728 people were recorded arriving within 48 hours.

The latest crossings take the provisional total number of UK arrivals so far this year to 2,983.

The second highest daily total recorded to date in 2024 was 358 migrants arriving on January 17 in eight boats.

The figures suggest more than 40,000 migrants have arrived in the UK since Rishi Sunak became prime minister in October 2022, with over 72,000 arrivals recorded since the Rwanda deal was signed six months earlier.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing, asked about the lastest figures, the PM’s spokesperson nsisted the UK’s joint work with France was “already delivering”, with more than 26,000 crossing attempts prevented in 2023 at an interception rate of 47%.

Asked about the government defeats in the House of Lords last night on the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill, the spokesperson said:

There is still an option for the Lords to work for the House of Commons, protect innocent lives from perilous journeys across the Channel, and we hope that they will take that opportunity in future votes.

The spokesperson also refused to say whether or not the government has found an airline willing to fly migrants to Rwanda if the government orders flights to leave once the bill becomes law.

Commenting on the latest arrival figures, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said:

This is the prime minister who promised the British people he would stop the boats, but has now seen more than 40,000 arrivals on his watch. This is the prime minister who said his strategy was working, yet is presiding over the busiest start to a year on record in terms of Channel crossings.

Under Rishi Sunak, independent reports show our border security has become a farce, billions are being spent on asylum hotels, and the Home Office has just lost thousands of asylum-seekers. Everything this prime minister touches fails, and our country deserves better than his weak, incompetent leadership.

Sir Mark Rowley has hit back at Rishi Sunak’s criticism of the policing of anti-war protests, dismissing claims officers are failing to enforce the law as “inaccurate” and claiming officers were being branded as “woke and fascist” at the same time.

The Metropolitan police commissioner spoke out on Tuesday after police leaders were last week summoned to a summit at Downing Street.

It was followed on Friday by the prime minister’s speech on extremism where he claimed forces – with the Met bearing the bulk of demonstrations – were managing rather than policing protests.

Addressing the London policing board, Britain’s top officer said that claims “we are not where the law permits” were inaccurate, and that despite “warm words” offering support for police taking robust action, officers feel undermined with some facing death threats.

Rowley also said the majority of demonstrators were peaceful.

On Friday Sunak said:“This week I have met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. And I say this to the police, we will back you when you take action.”

In his first comments since the PM’s speech, Rowley said:

We’re always operating in a very challenging political environments where tensions remain high and hate crime is still a long way above pre-October 7 levels.

Policing is used to being criticised. But where it isn’t justified, I do worry about the impact it has on our officers and staff, and on public confidence as we strive to operate without fear or favour.

At the moment, one side of the debate seems to say that we are guilty of two-tier policing and the other side says that we are oppressive and clamping down on the right to freedom of speech.

In this context of polarised public debate, I do think sometimes that we’re the first people who are able to be labelled simultaneously, woke and fascists …

To suggest that we are not where the law permits, as the law allows policing robustly, is inaccurate. At each of the major protests where the majority have been peaceful, we’ve seen wrongdoing and we’ve acted.

He said 360 arrests had been made in total including for public order and terrorism offences. Of those arrests, 90 were of far right supporters with police believing Suella Braverman’s comments immediately before a protest on Remembrance Sunday weekend, at least in part, incited trouble.

With Jeremy Hunt expected to cut personal taxes in the budget tomorrow, partly using revenue or headroom created by a further squeeze on public spending, many campaigners have pointed out that opinion polls suggest that this is not what voters want. There is a lot of polling suggesting people believe better funding for public services should be a higher priority than tax cuts. Only yesterday we published polling commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggesting almost three quarters of people are “very worried” or “fairly worried” about funding for the NHS and other public services, while fewer than half of them worry about tax levels.

But today YouGov has published new polling showing that, when the debate is framed using different language, voters overwhelmingly favour personal giveaways over more money for public services.

In his commentary, YouGov’s Matthew Smith reports:

In February, two separate YouGov polls showed that most Britons would prefer the government prioritise public spending over tax cuts …

A variation of that same question which more explicitly notes that the cuts would be on taxes that “everyday people pay” closes the gap considerably, with 41% supporting tax cuts in this scenario, although this is still lower than the 47% who would prefer to put money towards public services.

However, if rather than asking about tax cuts we instead ask about “measures to reduce the cost of living (e.g. measures that reduce food, energy and housing bills)”, then a remarkable shift occurs. Now, fully 64% would rather prioritise cost of living measures, compared to only 26% who would want to put the money towards public services.

This is a boost to Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, because it validates the decisions they are taking in the budget (as least in electoral terms – their priority), although, almost certainly, it won’t come as any surprise to them. The Conservative party knows a huge amount about public opinion because it commissions a lot of research like this for its own use.

The YouGov findings aren’t all positive for the government. They also show that 79% of people think public services are in a bad state.

The reverberations are continuing on Tuesday after the SNP’s deputy leader Keith Brown suggested at the weekend that his party’s MPs might withdraw from Westminster following the general election.

Brown mused on the notion in a weekend newspaper column, resulting in private exasperation from many SNP MPs and public dismissal of the idea by other senior party figures - and it has since been seized on by opponents who like nothing better than evidence of Nationalist disarray.

Today, Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray has written to SNP leader Humza Yousaf demanding answers over the SNP’s official position on the matter. Yousaf has already dismissed the suggestion, insisting that “actually most of Keith’s piece was about the fact that we need SNP MPs down in Westminster standing up for Scotland.”

Brown wrote that the issue of taking up seats needed to be “re-examined” in the wake of the row over the SNP’s Gaza motion, and “whether it is right to confer any legitimacy on an institution determined to deny democracy in Scotland”.

His comments don’t come out of nowhere – last week it was reported that some MPs were considering a campaign of “disengagement” with day-to-day parliamentary activities, amidst ongoing fury at the way the speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, dealt with the chaos and aftermath of the vote, but the party’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, later denied this.

Certainly, this apparent mixed messaging is a gift to Scottish Labour – their current general election line is that the SNP say they want to “send a message” to Westminster, while Labour wants to “send a government”. Any suggestion that the SNP want to disengage more formally from the Commons only strengthens that message.

Speculation about what Jeremy Hunt will do in the budget has primarily focused on “2p or not 2p”, as the Bard would say (whether the headline cut in personal taxes is worth 2p in the pound, or just 1p), and whether or not Hunt will prioritise cutting income tax or national insurance.

In the Financial Times this morning George Parker and Sam Fleming say that some Conservative MPs believe that Jeremy Hunt will announce a 2p in the pound cut in income tax in the budget tomorrow. They report:

Hunt is expected to extend for a further one year a “temporary” 5p-a-litre fuel duty cut and again scrap an inflation-linked rise in the levy, according to government insiders. No government has raised fuel duty since 2011.

While [a further extension of the “temporary”fuel duty move would be welcomed by Conservative MPs, some believe Hunt will unveil a bigger prize in his March 6 Budget: a headline-grabbing 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax.

Such a move would cost about £14bn a year, but Hunt could just about fund it by shaving £5bn off future public spending, deploying £7bn of the sparse fiscal “headroom” allotted to him by official forecasters, and raising several billion pounds through targeted tax rises.

But Steven Swinford in the Times says national insurance will definitely be cut.

Jeremy Hunt will cut national insurance by 2 per cent in the Spring Budget tomorrow

It will cost £10bn and be worth £450 for the average worker. He will sell it as £900 worth of tax cuts when combined with 2 per cent NI cut in Autumn Statement

As per @SamCoatesSky legislation for NI cut will be brought forward next week, enabling it to come into effect in April

Cuts to income tax were deemed too expensive and potentially inflationary

EXCLUSIVE:

Jeremy Hunt will cut national insurance by 2 per cent in the Spring Budget tomorrow

It will cost £10bn and be worth £450 for the average worker. He will sell it as £900 worth of tax cuts when combined with 2 per cent NI cut in Autumn Statement

As per @SamCoatesSky…

— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) March 5, 2024

Cutting national insurance is cheaper than cutting income tax because pensioners do not pay it. Swinford says a 2p in the pound cut in employee national insurance would cost about £10b, while a 2p cut in income tax would cut £13.7bn.

But Sunak is said to have been pushing for a cut in the basic rate of income tax. That is partly because it is a visible tax cut than national insurance, partly because it benefits pensioners (who now constitute the core Tory vote) and partly because there is some evidence that people fear a national insurance cut means there is less money for benefits or pensions because they wrongly think NI funds benefits. (It doesn’t, or at least not directly; it’s just another tax, with the revenue going into the government’s general spending pot).

Sunak is also on record as promising to cut income tax. As Christopher Hope from GB News points out, as chancellor in March 2022 Sunak said in the spring statement that he would bring income tax down to 19p in the pound in 2024.

Remember when Rishi Sunak - as Chancellor - said this time two years ago that he would cut income tax by 1p “before the end of this Parliament, in 2024”. Will the current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt deliver on Mr Sunak’s promise tomorrow? pic.twitter.com/9yY3Lo211o

— Christopher Hope📝 (@christopherhope) March 5, 2024

Later in 2022, during the summer Tory leadership campaign, Sunak proposed reducing the basic rate of income tax to 19% in 2024, as the first stage in a process taking it down to 16% in 2029.

(Sunak initially avoided promising tax cuts in the campaign, because he was arguing for fiscal responsibility and attacking Liz Truss’s plans for unfunded tax cuts. He relented as he realised he was losing. Truss beat him anyway.)

One possibility is that Hunt will make an announcement covering both national insurance and income tax, with some cuts coming into force this years and others proposed as options for after the general election.

Downing Street is facing a backlash from Conservative MPs and peers over moves to create a broader of definition of extremism in response to what Rishi Sunak describes as the threat of “mob rule”, Ben Quinn reports.

The Times has splashed on a version of this story.

Tuesday's TIMES: Tories divided over new definition of extremism#TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/VVFVtfqPAg

— Jack Surfleet (@jacksurfleet) March 4, 2024

In his Times story Matt Dathan says Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, is due to announce the new, tougher definition of extremism within weeks. Dathan says:

Under proposals being considered, the definition would ban anyone in Whitehall, government bodies or quangos from engaging with or funding groups or individuals that meet the new definition. It is non-statutory, not a new criminal definition, so would only affect who government bodies, officials and ministers could engage with and fund …

The draft definition … would define extremism as the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on intolerance, hatred or violence that aims to undermine the rights or freedoms of others.

Secondly, it would include those who seek to undermine or overturn the UK’s liberal system of democracy and democratic rights.

Any groups or individuals who intentionally create a permissive environment for either of these would also be banned from working with government bodies. It is understood that this would include influencers on social media who are not extremists themselves but deliberately play down the danger of extremism.

Good morning. Westminster chatter about the prospect of Rishi Sunak calling the general election in May (specifically on Thursday 2 May, the most obvious date for a spring election) has been getting louder and louder in recent days, and this morning Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, ratcheted that up a notch by betting Kay Burley on Sky News that it would happen then.

Ashworth said:

And by the way, this election, I think, is coming in May. I think it’s definitely coming in May. The Conservatives are planning for May.

Burley offered to bet him that it wouldn’t. Being probably less wealthy than Piers Morgan, and certainly less vain and crass, Burley proposed a £10 bet, not a £1,000 one. Ashworth accepted, and they shook hands on it, with Ashworth suggesting that the money goes to a charity for the children of alcoholics.

Labour has been prediciting for ages that the election will be in May, but most journalists at Westminster have, until recently, not taken this particularly seriously. Labour has its own reasons for claiming May is the date in Sunak’s diary. If Sunak delays, Labour can claim he “bottled” it. And, internally, pushing this line serves a “no complacency” purpose, ensuring the party is ready for May if it has to be.

Burley was reflecting the conventional which is based on precedent, and the fact that in the postwar periods prime ministers facing likely election defeat have almost always delayed polling day for as long as possible. Even when No 10 is in permanent crisis, being prime minister is an extraordinarily exciting job and nothing else Sunak does in his life will ever feel quite so important. You don’t give it up lightly, and party leaders find it easy to convince themselves, Micawber style, that, if they wait six months, something might turn up.

But recently there has been a lot more talk about May being an option, fuelled by reports claiming that some in No 10 are pushing the idea.

Last week, Steve Back, the photographer who covers Downing Street, and who specialises in long-lens shots showing what documents people are carrying as they enter No 10, posted these on X.

A prediction from me !! Rishi will announce election 2024 on the 28th of March.

— PoliticalPics (@PoliticalPics) February 28, 2024

A prediction from me !! Rishi will announce election 2024 on the 28th of March.

And, in reply to someone who asked if he was willing to bet on this (not Kay Burley), he replied:

As a non betting chap, I will stand you a few sherries in the Red Lion ! If and a big if am I wrong, not forgetting I see documents through my lens!!

And in a report in the Mail on Sunday at the weekend Glen Owen and Anna Mikhailova said the thinking in Sunak’s circle is changing.

Until recently, Mr Sunak’s advisers were near-unanimous: leave the Election until the last possible moment to give the flagging economy time to pick up. However, the fraught buildup to Jeremy Hunt’s budget on Wednesday has cast doubt on the wisdom of this strategy.

As one pivotal figure said: ‘Six weeks ago we were looking at a £30bn pot to distribute in the form of eye-catching, potentially gamechanging tax cuts. Now, because of the rising cost of government borrowing, that has more than halved” …

A well-connected MP said that autumn will be the time when bills arrive for issues such as the infected blood scandal, which could top £11bn, plus £2bn more for the victims of the Post Office miscarriages of justice, just as hundreds of thousands of voters are coming off fixed-rate mortgages and on to higher deals.

The MP added: ‘I’m definitely on Team May.’ As The Mail on Sunday reported last month, meetings have been held in government offices to make contingency arrangements for an Election on 2 May, the same day as the local elections.

If Mr Sunak went to the country on the same day it would at least avert any attempt by Tory MPs to oust him if the results are as bad as expected.

Those on ‘Team May’ also point out that Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour is now divided over the Gaza conflict – as demonstrated by Mr Galloway’s victory over his party – and argue that the opinion polls are showing no sign of budging.

Indeed, the legal migration figures due to be published at the end of May are expected to be ‘a horror show’, and with another summer of small boat crossings on the horizon, the party’s ratings could sink below the current 20 per cent to ‘extinction levels’, with the Tories even potentially being overtaken by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Greg Hands, the minister for London, was doing an interview round for the government this morning, and on Times Radio, when asked if he thought there was any prospect of a May election, he said no.

Hands is a former Conservative party chair. But he was sacked from this job in November and given a more junior ministerial job instead. If there is a secret No 10 plan for a May election, he is unlikely to know about it.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Andy Cooke, chief inspector at HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.

10am: Martin Lewis, the MoneySavingExpert founder and consumer champion, gives evidence to the Commons education committee about financial education. At 11am Damian Hinds, the education minister, gives evidence at 11am.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

11.30am: Victoria Atkins, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

3.10pm: David Cameron, the foreign secretary, opens a debate on foreign affairs in the House of Lords.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.