George osborne

More advance snippets from the Budget

The big Budget news tonight is that the personal allowance will rise to £9,205. This is a larger increase than expected and, intriguingly, will be paid for — in part — by a couple of billion more of spending cuts. So, the Lib Dems see considerable progress on their main budget priority, raising the income tax threshold to £10,000, but this will be partially funded by something Tory MPs have been calling for, more spending cuts. It also appears that the coalition will further increase the pace of its corporation tax cuts as well as introducing a new higher rate of stamp duty for £2 million plus houses. There’ll also

Four tests for Osborne’s Budget


With the Coalition taking pre-Budget briefing to new levels you’d be excused for thinking there’s little we don’t know about tomorrow’s statement. But here are four questions we can’t yet answer, and that will be crucial to assessing whether this is a Budget for low-to-middle earners as the Chancellor claims:
 1) Will the new increase in the personal allowance be restricted to basic rate taxpayers? When the Coalition raised the allowance by £1,000 back in April 2011 they cancelled out the benefits to those at the top by lowering the 40p tax threshold. The second time around — the £630 increase that kicks in this April — they didn’t. From

Why Labour’s 50p tax wobble is dangerous for Ed Miliband

Why did Gordon Brown wait until the last few weeks of Labour’s thirteen-year reign to implement a 50p tax rate? Easy. Because it wasn’t so much a fiscal policy as a fiendish trap, designed to cut into a Tory government’s flesh. But now, it seems, the trap has snared another victim: Labour itself. The Telegraph’s Daniel Knowles has already neatly summarised the politics arising from Sam Coates’ report (£) that Labour will neither back the scrapping of the 50p rate nor promise to reinstate it either. But the basic point is worth repeating: if that’s the approach that Labour chooses, then they’ll be left in a complete mess. They can

Has Osborne learnt the right lessons from Adam Smith?

According to Rachel Sylvester in The Times (£) today, George Osborne’s love of soaking the rich — from the non-dom levy to the tycoon tax – stems from the importance he puts on the ‘empathy’ described in Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. If so, he’d better start re-reading his Adam Smith. Certainly, the Chancellor is familiar with Smith’s other great book, The Wealth of Nations (1776). He wrote an introduction to a recent edition of it. That book is a passionate call for free trade and for open and competitive markets, and a stinging critique of the mutual back-scratching between businesspeople and politicians — what today we would call

Tax transparency is a triumph for Osborne

Transparency marches on, and what a joy it is. According to the newspapers today, George Osborne will tomorrow turn Ben Gummer MP’s call for tax transparency into government policy. And so we will all get statements detailing just what our tax pounds are spent on. To use the example being bandied around this morning, a £50,000 earner will learn that they contribute £4,727 towards welfare payments. As James put it at the weekend, George Osborne tends to have both economic and political motives behind his actions — and the two are present, if almost indivisible, here. No doubt the Chancellor hopes that taxpayers, on seeing where their hard-earned ends up,

Sundays should be about more than just economics

The Chancellor didn’t even bother to hide the thick end of the wedge as he inserted the thin end into the Sunday trading laws. He declared yesterday that restrictions on Sunday trading would be lifted for the duration of the Olympics and Paralympics on the basis that ‘It would be a great shame if the country had a “closed for business” sign on it.’ And he went on to remark, ‘maybe we will learn some lessons from it’. What might those be, do you suppose? That people, left to themselves, will shop all day, every day and should therefore be able to? Certainly that was the conclusion of The Times,

Support for scrapping the 50p rate grows, but why?

Will Wednesday’s Budget herald the end of the 50p tax rate? It’s looking increasingly likely, with today’s Telegraph claiming that Osborne will replace it with a top rate of 45 per cent. Leaving the economic arguments aside, the consensus is that this will prove an unpopular move that could damage the Tories. Tim Montogmerie tweets that ‘if the post-Budget headlines are about 50p then Tories have a political problem’. The New Statesman’s George Eaton writes that it ‘would do more to retoxify the Tory brand than any other measure’. But how dangerous a move is it? Certainly, scrapping the 50p rate doesn’t poll well. Yesterday’s YouGov poll found 60 per

Downing St plans to boost construction

In the last few months, there’s been a distinct change in the attitude of the Tories at the heart of government. They are now far more cognisant of just how difficult it is to drive change through the government machine. It is no longer just Steve Hilton and Michael Gove complaining about this, but Osborne and Cameron too. The Chancellor’s particular frustration at the moment is over the pace of planning reform. Osborne and his brains trust believe that simplifying the planning rules is one of the things that they could do to both give the economy a short term stimulus, by encouraging more construction, and improve its long term

Osborne makes his appeal to Britain’s grafters

‘A Budget for Working People’. That’s the headline theme of this year’s Budget, says our former editor Matt d’Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph today. And his words are borne out by George Osborne’s interview with the Sun on Sunday. ‘We’ve got to help people into work, particularly young people,’ says the Chancellor, ‘We have to make this a competitive place in the world to set up in business and employ people.’ The measures being broadcast around this morning include a trial suspension of Sunday trading regulations, timed for during the Olypmic Games. At once, this is both an unsurprising and genuinely risky venture from Osborne. Unsurprising, because the votes of

The man behind the Budget

In today’s Telegraph, I profile Rupert Harrison, chief economic adviser to George Osborne and the man who’ll do more than anything else (including his boss) to shape next week’s Budget. In the British political system, special advisers are given very little attention — even though the best of them are more influential than the average Cabinet member. The Treasury’s vast power, assembled by Brown, is still there. That can’t be said for Osborne: he spends half his time in Downing St, and is sufficiently detached from the Budget process that he felt able to take a couple of days’ holiday in America last week to jump in the motorcade and

James Forsyth

Osborne’s economic and political reasons for local pay rates

George Osborne has just fired the first shot in the fight over the 2012 Budget. His decision to introduce local pay for the 160,000 civil servants coming off the public sector pay freeze is, as is often the case with Chancellor Osborne, both an economic and a political move. The economic case for local pay is straightforward. National pay rates mean that public sector workers are relatively underpaid in prosperous areas of the country and relatively overpaid in deprived areas. Pay that reflected local conditions would make for a more balanced economy, helping the private sector in those parts of the country where the public sector is currently dominant. But

Balls lays into Brown — but why?

Normally, pre-Budget interviews with shadow chancellors are dry and methodical. But the Times’s interview with Ed Balls (£) today is the opposite: frenetic, relatively non-fiscal and utterly, utterly strange. Given that CoffeeHousers are probably waking up to brunch, I thought it might be a bit much for you to wade through his thoughts on food and on crying (‘OK. Crying. What do you want to know about crying?’). So I’ve pulled out some of the main political points from the interview here: 1) Laying into Brown. The quotation that gives the interview its headline is an eye-opener, coming as it does from Ed Balls. ‘Nobody is going to look back

Cameron and Obama bargain over fuel

No wonder David Cameron and Barack Obama were being so chummy: they both knew that they could help each other. The Times carries an intriguing story (£) on its front page this morning, about how the two men discussed a plan to get fuel prices down in the UK and the US. The idea is that both countries — and perhaps more — would release some of their oil reserves. And so supply would go up, and prices would come down. As would our reliance on the oil-rich countries of the Middle East. Apparently, we’re some distance from a deal yet, but you can see why both the PM and

Go on, George — scrap the 50p rate

Will George Osborne scrap the 50p tax in next week’s Budget? Whispers to this effect have been getting louder, and now the Guardian is saying that it will come back down to 40p, and it makes a lot of sense. As I argued in my Telegraph column a fortnight ago, this is the perfect time to do it. Axing the tax paid by 1 per cent of the population will be unpopular with the remaining 99 per cent, so if Osborne is going to take a political hit he should do so now. Anecdotal evidence of its harmfullness has been getting stronger: multinational companies saying they can’t persuade people to

The Bond Bubble’s getting bigger

George Osborne is planning to launch a 100-year bond, says the FT — a sure sign that the Bond Bubble is getting even bigger. These devices are usually used by American universities: the California Institute of Technology issued one at 4.7 per cent, MIT did one at 5.6 per cent, and a few American companies have tried at 6 per cent. The Mexcians sold a billion bucks’ worth of century bonds a while ago at 6.1 per cent, so it would only be a matter of time before HM Treasury — a world leader in, ahem, novel debt vehicles — was going to do the same. The US Treasury Borrowing

A Lib Dem alternative to Beecroft

When the Beecroft report’s recommendation of ‘Compensated No Fault Dismissal’ was first leaked back in October, Norman Lamb was one of the strongest Lib Dem voices to speak out against it, describing it as ‘madness’. Back then, he was Nick Clegg’s chief of staff. Now, thanks to Chris Huhne’s resignation and Ed Davey’s promotion, he’s in an even better position to prevent this ‘madness’: Employment Minister in the Department for Business. As James has said, the Lib Dem MPs are unanimous in their opposition to Beecroft’s proposals, and until recently it didn’t look like they would be translated into policy at all. But last week, George Osborne threw his weight

How Mervyn King’s role has changed

A week devoted to Mervyn King and his eight-year reign at the Bank of England sounds like pretty turgid stuff. But, already, the series that has started in the Times (£) this morning — building up to an interview with the man himself — is anything but. Here, for instance, is a snippet from one of its articles, by David Wighton, on how Mr King reacted to the crumbling of Northern Rock: ‘As the plight of Northern Rock and other banks worsened, Sir John Gieve and Paul Tucker were urging Sir Mervyn to act, but he would not budge. “He mocked them as ‘crisis junkies’ and more or less accused

The politics of post-2015

Have you noticed, CoffeeHousers, that our politicians are talking more and more about what they’d do after the next election? This has been happening, really, since last November, when George Osborne extended the forecasting horizon of his Budget to 2017. That had a hint of chicanery about it, ensuring that Osborne continued to meet his first fiscal rule — but it has still triggered a fashion for future gazing. Since then, both Labour and the Lib Dems have talked, in broad terms, about what they would offer for after 2015. I mention this now because of a story in today’s Sunday Times (£). Osborne, apparently, is going to signal a

Balls sidles up to the Lib Dems

Oh look, Ed Balls has backed a mansion tax, saying in an interview with Nick Robinson that ‘If the chancellor wants to go down that road then we will support him… let’s work together.’ But, never fear, it’s not a completely non-partisan offer from the shadow chancellor. He does weave a divide with George Osborne, by adding that ‘The issue is what’s the purpose? If the purpose is to help families facing higher tuition fees, higher VAT or higher fuel bills — for example boosting their tax credits — yes.’ In other words, the money should go towards Labour policies, or Balls will withdraw his hand of friendship. The shadow