George osborne

Will Osborne be vindicated in 2015?

VAT, VAT, VAT – but what’s this? The main headline on today’s FT doesn’t mention the sales tax at all, and the piece below it only does so in passing. Instead, a declaration that “UK austerity measures [are] expected to pay off,” based on a survey of economists conducted by the paper. Although those polled have concerns about inflation and the eurozone, only 13 percent say that George Osborne needs a Plan B for dealing with the public finances. As always, we shouldn’t place too much stock in this kind of thing. Some economists will back the coalition, others will back Labour; some will be right, others will be wrong.

Osborne and Johnson battle over the new tax divide

Now here’s a thing: a radio appearance by Alan Johnson that actually clarified some details about Labour’s economic policy in the Miliband era. Sure, the shadow chancellor spent most of his time on the Today Programme setting about the coalition’s VAT hike, with all the usual arguments about jobs and growth. But there was also confirmation that Labour’s deficit reduction plan would split 60-40 between tax rises and spending cuts, and that they would raise national insurance levels rather than VAT. It repositions the argument some way beyond the simple Do/Don’t divide that was developing around VAT. Now there are two choices for voters to make. Do they prefer a

Rising costs: a problem for the public and the coalition in 2011

Ne’er mistake correlation with cause, I know. But, during the Brown premiership, the correlation between petrol prices and poll ratings was still pretty striking. Mike Smithson graphed it early last year, but the basic story was this: the Tories enjoyed their biggest poll lead over Labour when petrol prices were at their highest, and Labour closed the gap to only 1 percent when petrol prices were at their lowest. At the very least, it gives us a hypothesis to work from: prices up, the government suffers; prices down, the government recovers. And it looks as though we’ll be able to test that hypothesis soon enough. Today’s Express reports that –

An 80 percent elected Lords would not be a Lib Dem triumph

The Lib Dem manifesto committed the party to a fully elected House of Lords. The Tory manifesto talked about a ‘mainly-elected’ second chamber and in 2007 David Cameron voted for ‘the other place’ to be 80 percent elected (interestingly, George Osborne voted for a fully elected Lords). The coalition agreement committed the government to a ‘wholly or mainly elected upper chamber’. So it is hard to see how a Lords that retained a twenty percent appointed element could be portrayed as a major Lib Dem triumph as, according to today’s Guardian, the coalition wants. There has been talk in Westminster that Clegg’s consolation prize if the AV referendum is defeated

Minor indiscretions

The Telegraph’s latest Lib Dem revelations are embarrassing for the ministers concerned, but won’t cause the coalition much trouble. Ed Davey is caught being critical of the announcement to take child benefit away from higher-rate taxpayers and expressing concerns about the changes to housing benefit. Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, is captured expressing regret about the Lib Dem u-turn on tuition fees and saying he couldn’t work with Tories like Liam Fox “for very long.” Steve Webb, the highly numerate pensions minister, was trapped into revealing that he had written to the Chancellor about the child benefit changes because “the details aren’t right.” There are, the Telegraph tells us, more

A tale of two quads

There could barely be a starker contrast between Danny Alexander’s interview with the FT today and the, ahem, Cableleaks. Unlike his fellow Lib Demmer, the Treasury Secretary knew that he was speaking to a journalist – and he keeps well within the lines when discussing the coalition. “My impression,” he says, “is that the Liberal Democrats support the coalition. People knew the first couple of years would be extremely tough.” Alexander saves his most enthusiastic rhetoric for the quad: the group of four ministers – David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and himself – who met regularly during the spending review period to decide where the cuts would fall. As

Dissecting operation Coulson

Tom Baldwin’s inaugeration as Labour spin guru occasions Tim Montgomerie to appraise Andy Coulson. For many, Coulson has committed the spin doctor’s cardinal sin and become the story, and not just his more voluble opponents on the left. Tim rejects that analysis, but concedes that Coulson may drift to pastures new in 2011. Coulson’s record is quite impressive. He snared the tabloid press, and, together with George Osborne, ended Gordon Brown’s short honeymoon, exposing the Labour leader’s indecision with well-timed tax cut promises. The Election That Never Was spawned a far more enduring theme: Labour’s internal fissures and the timidity of its senior figures. If Coulson goes, that will be his

Fraser Nelson

Access all areas | 18 December 2010

It is an exciting day for Liberty Osborne, the Chancellor’s daughter, to join him at work. The windows at HM Treasury are boarded up, workmen line the road replacing the bombproof (but not student-proof) glass. Graffiti defaces the walls, but although several politicians are named and shamed in spray paint (‘Why did Nick Clegg cross the road? Because he’d promised not to’) there is nothing unkind about the author of the cuts: George Osborne himself. When we meet the Chancellor at 10.30 a.m. in 11 Downing St, he does not look the slightest bit like a man under siege. Seven-year-old Liberty bounds out of his study, waving at us cheerfully.

Clegg turns his attention from the students to the banks

‘Tis the season to bash a banker – or it is if you’re a Lib Dem, at least. After the stresses of last week, Nick Clegg lets off steam with an aggressive interview in the FT. “They don’t operate in a social vacuum,” he says of the City’s moneymen, before seething that, “it is wholly untenable to have millions of people making sacrifices in their living standards, only to see the banks getting away scot-free.” He even suggests that the government should consider a one-off bonus tax, like that introduced by Labour last year.   Will anything come of it? On the evidence so far, probably not. The coalition –

The Spectator’s Christmas interview with George Osborne

The Christmas Special of The Spectator is out today, and George Osborne kindly agreed to an interview. We have printed 1,500 words in the magazine, but James and I thought CoffeeHousers may like a fuller version, where he has more space to speak for himself.  We have gone into way more detail on tax policy here than in the magazine, for example, as Osborne is seldom pressed on this point and his thoughts are very interesting. We have divided it up by subject headings, so CoffeeHousers can skip the chunks they’re not interested in.   Liberty, paternity and Treasury It is an exciting day for Liberty Osborne, the Chancellor’s daughter,

The coming battle over Mainstream Conservatism

It’s not just the students who are waging a political struggle. In yesterday’s Times (£), Tim Montgomerie fired up a debate over the future of the Conservative Party that will no doubt simmer through the rest of this Parliament. For those who can’t delve behind the paywall, the argument was broadly this: that a tension is emerging between liberal Conservatism and a more traditional Conservatism. On the side of the Liberal Conservatives are those who want to extend the union with Nick Clegg and his party; a group which may well include the Tory leadership. On the other side are those who want the Tories to go it alone after

Can the public purse get some of its money back from PFI contractors?

Asking PFI contractors to voluntarily give back some of the money that they are due from the government might seem like rather a hopeless task. But the PFI-Rebate campaign launched today by Jesse Norman, one of the smartest of the new intake of Tory MPs, has a better chance of success than appears at first blush. Norman is pushing for the contractors to take a 0.5 percent cut which they might well decide is worthwhile to deal with all the negative publicity that further scrutiny of PFI would bring. If these contractors want to take the PFI model global, then they can’t really afford the kind of coverage that a

The Guardian’s Wiki-spin

In today’s Wikileaks revelations, it is Mervyn King’s turn to be pushed through the mill. Did he act politically when pushing for a deficit reduction plan? Was he critical of David Cameron and George Osborne or just pointing out the obvious: that the Tory leaders had not held power before and – shock horror – were keen to get elected? The Guardian’s reading of the cables suggests that the government’s Batman and Robin (to keep with US diplomatic style) were unprepared for the task ahead. But re-read the key passages and it is clear that Cameron and Osborne were no different from any other opposition leaders – reliant on a

Osborne airs the Tories’ election message

George Osborne’s autumn statement previewed what I suspect will be the coalition, or at least the Conservatives, re-election message. ‘This government has taken Britain out of the financial danger zone and set our economy on the path to recovery.’   Today’s OBR forecast was a boon for the Chancellor. It suggests that there won’t be a double-dip recession, as his critics suggested there would be. The improved economic numbers allowed him to come to the House and declare that the deficit reduction ‘plan is working’, and that already the coalition has saved the country £19 billion in debt interest. Alan Johnson was his usual self in response. He attacked the

Osborne saves his glad tidings for another day

Courtesy of Paul Waugh and the Standard, the OBR projects there to be a £6bn budget surplus by 2015-16. There was no fanfare to herald this in George Osborne’s statement, which was a litany of dirge-like thanksgiving for catastrophe averted. The Treasury is now describing the figure as being ‘within the margin of error’, which is fluent Sir Humphrey-speak. The Standard’s discovery is another example of the government deliberately hiding good economic news – in what Fraser terms Osborne’s Paul Daniels Act. Now why, I wonder, would a self-confessed tactical obsessive, who just happens to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be doing that?      

Setting the scene for Osborne’s speech

George Osborne will make a brief statement to the house this afternoon, responding to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s revised growth forecasts. Reuters reports: ‘As expected, the Office for Budget Responsibility raised its 2010 growth forecast to 1.8 percent from its 1.2 percent June forecast to factor in a surprisingly strong performance in the middle of the year.’ The upgrade fuels Osborne’s positive narrative: the coalition pulled Britain from the abyss and international confidence in Britain’s economy is growing. These forecasts vindicate the government’s ‘cut with care’ strategy. Concrete savings are now being made and they enable the Chancellor to announce that public sector net borrowing will fall. Reuters again:

Some early statistical vindication for IDS

The Observer has news that will warm the government’s hearts. Ernst and Young have conducted a report that suggests 100,000 public sector jobs will be saved thanks to the savings made by welfare reform. The report’s other finding, a crucial one, is that the Treasury will be raking in £11bn by 2014-15. So then, a statistical vindication for IDS’ reforms, the economic side of them at least. It also gives the government some defensive hardware ahead of tomorrow’s Chancellor’s autumn statement. Not that it really needs it. On the back of Britain’s strong economic performance in the third quarter, the Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to raise its 2010

Ireland’s crisis is the fault of Fianna Fáil, not just the euro

In all likelihood, George Osborne will rise this afternoon to groans if not jeers. Britain looks set to lend Ireland £7bn as part of multilateral and bilateral bailouts. Many, particularly the Eurosceptic right, question our involvement, given our straitened financial circumstances and the apparent fact that Britain is sustaining the eurozone’s monetary and debt union, and will have to borrow to do so.     George Osborne has been adamant throughout: Ireland is too important to Britain’s recovery to risk collapse – British and Irish banks are closely linked, debts and borrowing are often co-dependent, trade is very profitable. That the bailout should strengthen the euro is a natural consequence of Ireland

Parliamentarian of the Year award recipients 2010

The Spectator held its annual Parliamentarian of the Year Awards ceremony this evening. Here, for CoffeeHousers to deliberate over, is the full list of winners: Newcomer of the year: Caroline Lucas Inquisitor of the year: Tom Watson Peer of the year: Lord Young of Graffham Speech of the year: David Cameron (for his “big comprehensive offer to the Lib Dems” and the apology for Bloody Sunday) Double act of the year: George Osborne and Danny Alexander Campaigner of the year: Ed Miliband Survivor of the year: Gisela Stuart Backbencher of the year: Graham Brady Statesman of the era: Margaret Thatcher Parliamentarian of the year: Ed Balls Politician of the year:

The British taxpayer should not be bailing out Ireland

Everyone is talking about the royal wedding today.  It will be a great occasion but the public finances are tight and people are already asking about the cost.  There is a bigger issue for British taxpayers, though.  Our politicians have arranged for them to get hitched to the bride from hell: the ongoing fiscal disaster in the eurozone.   Under current plans it is reported that we could be liable for up to £7 billion in any Irish bailout.  At the TaxPayers’ Alliance, we have just this morning started a petition against British taxpayers’ money being put at risk for a euro-bailout of Ireland; you can sign it here.