Economy

Thematically speaking, there wasn’t too much in Ed Miliband’s speech that we haven’t heard before. The middle is still squeezed, the Tories are still undermining the “Promise of Britain”, the bankers are still taking us for fools, and communities still need to be rebuilt. Even his remarks about benefit dependency bear comparion to those he made in February. But there was a difference here, and that was his punchiness. The Labour leader may not be the most freewheelin’ orator in town, but the text he delivered was less wonky than usual, more coherent and spikier. It was even — in parts — memorable. You do wonder whether Miliband has learnt

Less soap opera, and more policy grit, in today’s batch of Ed Balls files. There is, for instance, a lot on Gordon Brown’s proposed Bill of Rights (here, here, here and here), which is as ambrosia for future political historians, but is fairly turgid reading even for today’s political anoraks. Likewise the charts and doodlings related to the structure of Brown’s Downing Street. Yet some things do stand out. Here are a few of them: i) What the Treasury says, Brown didn’t do. You’ve got to admire the Treasury’s attempt to inject some realism into the fiscal calculus back in 2006. “Flat real” spending — i.e. public spending that rises

To an extent, British politics is still determined by whether or not you agree with Tony Blair. For more than a year, the coalition and the opposition have been debating whether to continue Blair’s public service reforms; this is a testament to his failure as Prime Minister as much as it to his success. Today, has given an interview to the Times (£), coinciding with the release of his memoirs in paperback. He uses it to question the Labour party’s current journey back into “nostalgia”. He says: “The attraction of a concept like Blue Labour is it allows you to say that there’s a group of voters out there we

Ed Balls walked into two traps on Newsnight yesterday evening. First, he seemed stumped when Jeremy Paxman asked him if he was praying that George Osborne was right. Paxman’s ‘gotcha point’ was that if Osborne isn’t right the country is in deep trouble and Balls wouldn’t want that. But Balls’ more serious slip was to say, “My view, though, is that the central outcome isn’t that we see a resumption of growth.” This, as coalition sources have been pointing out today, allows them to present any growth as a vindication of their strategy. For all the talk about the NHS today, the economy still remains the central battleground in politics.

While Dominque Strauss-Kahn was in a New York court room, pleading not guilty to charges of sexual assault, his former IMF colleagues were delivering their verdict on the UK economy at the Treasury. The IMF are very polite guests and their report has provided some timely support for the coalition’s fiscal approach by declaring that there is currently no need for a Plan B. The Osborne operation has been quick to point out that even in various alternative scenarios the IMF set out in their report, they don’t call for more spending or smaller cuts. But there are things which the IMF says that won’t be music to Osborne’s ears.

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the deleterious effects of political consensus on energy policy. A good example of this has emerged today. According to Politics Home, Luciana Berger and Caroline Lucas are seeking an amendment to the Green Deal to impose a target for domestic carbon reduction. A number of salient points emerge from this. First, it’s a fine instance of the obsession with targets; itself an indication that this area of policy is largely a top down initiative – driven by targets, taxes and penalties. The Green Deal, as it currently stands, is one of the few areas that put incentive before directive. The idea was

The news that the votes which ended up with Russia and Qatar winning the rights to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups might not have been model, clean elections is about as surprising as the news that the faeces discovered in the woods are believed to be of ursine origin. In the Independent today, Dominic Lawson cuts through the seemingly continuous media coverage of the matter to the question of whether it actually matters: “More to the point, given that there are no objective economic benefits to the nations holding such competitions (whatever the kudos to local political dignitaries such as Boris Johnson) shouldn’t we as taxpayers feel grateful

What do the TUC, heavy industry and the European Commission have in common? This is not the start of a bad joke; the answer is that they all oppose the government’s energy policy. Ten days ago, Tata (formerly British Steel) announced that it was to cut more than 1,500 jobs at plants in Scunthorpe and on Teeside. The directors later confirmed that their decision was influenced, in part, by the introduction of a costly carbon floor price at the last Budget. The floor price, which exists on top of levies imposed by the EU, has increased the burden of taxation on energy consumption to subsidise renewable energy research. In last week’s