The Spectator

Home Theresa May, the Prime Minister, decided to delay until later in the month the invoking of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to trigger the Brexit process, even though her power to do so had been confirmed by the passing of the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act. The Commons had defeated two amendments added by the House of Lords: one concerning continuing rights of EU residents in Britain by 335 votes to 287; the other about Parliament having a meaningful vote on any Brexit deal by 331 to 286. The Lords quiesced once the Bill was sent back for their consideration.

After Philip Hammond delivered his Budget last week, he went to speak to a meeting of Conservative backbench MPs. Several were deeply alarmed about his tearing up of their manifesto pledge not to raise National Insurance. One asked him how sure he was about all this. Might they find themselves going out to defend this tax rise to their constituents, only to find him abandoning the policy later? No, the Chancellor replied, he would not change his mind. This tax rise was centrepiece of Budget, so could not be scrapped. He was not for turning. For a Chancellor to abandon his main Budget policy within a week is nothing more than extraordinary. It suggests a staggering lack of communication, forethought and basic political competence.

Some Budgets are historic, most are boring and a small number can be remembered as a disaster. After just a few months, Philip Hammond has managed a budget - his first - that can be placed in this last category. Economically, it made very little difference. Politically, it is shaping up to be a disaster. His Budget was supposed to have been conducted under the pledge, issued no fewer than four times in the 2015 Conservative manifesto, that his party not raise taxes. ‘Instead, we will ease the burden of taxation,’ the Tories promised. It seems plausible enough, and the Conservatives were returned with an absolute majority.

As Prime Minister, John Major was intolerant of opposition from within the Conservative party over the EU — memorably calling Maastricht rebels ‘bastards’. It was unwise, and the bad blood it created within his party has been swirling around ever since. Now that the tables have turned and Sir John now finds himself the rebellious outsider on Europe, it is tempting for those on the Conservative party’s Eurosceptic wing, who for so long were denounced as freaks, fruitcakes and swivel--eyed loons, to take the same approach. Their instinct is to denounce Sir John, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke and others as dinosaurs seeking to deny the will of the British people.

Camilla for Queen Sir: On reading Melanie McDonagh’s argument against there ever being a Queen Camilla (‘Against Queen Camilla’, 25 February), I was reminded of a line from Brideshead Revisited, ‘Beryl is a woman of strict Catholic principle fortified by the prejudices of the middle class.’ Her opposition to Camilla seems to ignore the long tradition of infidelity among our royalty and nobility, where marriage has always been about more than just love. Eleanor of Aquitaine had been married to Louis VII of France, had borne him two daughters and had been unfaithful in that marriage, yet she went on to marry Henry II of England and become his queen consort.