London

In October last year, Osborne announced a new levy on banks’ balance sheets. It was 0.05 percent for this calendar year, before rising to 0.075 percent from 2012 onwards. But, today, the Chancellor has announced that the ‘introductory’ rate has been abolished – so banks will be charged the 0.075 percent rate on all liabilities. Here’s my nine-point Q&A, by way of delivering my take: 1) So, a retrospective tax? Not quite. He’s imposing a 0.05 per cent rate on balance sheets in January and February. But he’ll up the charge to 0.1 percent for March and April to compensate. It will go back to 0.075 percent in May. This

We at The Spectator have not had much company in criticising Mervyn King for the failure of his monetary policy. The Bank of England governor has a status like the Speaker used to: someone whose position must command respect, otherwise the system collapses. And yet there are Octopuses with a better track record in inflation forecasting. People have been repeating that the Bank’s independence is a great success for so long that it has become a truism. Why? We’ve just had a huge crash, the result of a credit bubble – fuelled by dangerously low lending rates. And the recipe for restoration? Even cheaper debt, with resurgent inflation. The British

David Cameron and George Osborne must have hoped that their message from Davos today would be broadcast unimpeded. It is, after all, a blunt message, designed to smash through all the radio chatter: we must continue with deficit reduction, there is no alternative, etc. But, inconveniently for them, there are other voices saying what we must do – among them Boris Johnson. The Mayor of London’s interview with the Telegraph is at once typical and quite intriguing. Typical, because he holds aloft the same standards as always. “I understand 50p tax politically,” he says, “but there has got to be a sense of where we are going and where we

A potent Tory tag team in the Sun today, as David Cameron and Boris Johnson join pens to take on the unions. The tone of their article is as blunt as anything we’ve heard from them on the matter, particularly the Prime Minister. “Let’s call these threats what they are,” it says about the prospect of strikes during the Royal Wedding and the Olympics: “nothing more than headline grabbing to score political points”. And it continues to deliver a warning to union bosses: “you can try to drag this country back to the 1970s, to a time when militants held our country to ransom, but you will not succeed.” It’s

‘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 –

It’s costing more than the government cuts in welfare, more even than the UK’s Irish bail-out, but what exactly is all that money set aside for the 2012 Olympic Games actually being spent on? You might be surprised. In this week’s Spectator, Andrew Gilligan and I disclose, for the first time, all the petty, legally-binding demands made by the 115-member International Olympic Committee (IOC) of London. This is information that the government, the mayor and the London Olympic organisers never wanted you to see – even though it forms a binding part of the Host City Contract signed when we won the right to host the games in 2005. Paul

Andrew Gilligan explains why Lutfur Rahman’s victory in Tower Hamlets is a potentially alarming development. Obviously, this is a humiliation for Ed Miliband. The victory of a de-selected Labour councillor is bad enough, but what does he say about Ken Livingstone’s involvement in Rahman’s campaign? Widening those imploring eyes, offering an apologetic shrug and saying “Ken will be Ken” probably won’t cut the mustard this time. Perversely, Livingstone might benefit from Rahman’s victory, as it has allowed him to resuscitate his ‘Red Ken the insurgent’ pose – and you can’t get much more cynically subversive than this latest stunt. Questions will and should be asked of his close association with

One of the most significant things we have seen today is George Osborne’s announcement that Crossrail, Mersey Gateway, the big science project Diamond synchrotron and universal broadband would all go ahead. Osborne has decided that it is worth cutting deeper now in other areas to protect the kind of investments that will make Britain a more attractive place to do business down the line. As I said after the Budget, Osborne’s desire to protect this kind of capital spending is a key part of his plan – along with his reductions in corporation tax – to boost the private sector in Britain as the public sector is downsized. The Crossrail

The coalition’s immigration cap is, as several Conservative Cabinet ministers have pointed out privately, flawed. It threatens to cap the kind of immigration that bothers almost nobody, high skilled foreign workers coming to this country to do a specific job. As Ken Clarke has told colleagues, the problem is that Labour — albeit right at the end of their time in office — stopped non-EU low-skilled immigration. So all there was left to cap was high-skilled immigration.   But there is a potential solution that would enable the cap — a Conservative manifesto promise — to remain in place, but also deal with Vince Cable and businesses’ objections http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23879244-vince-cables-attack-on-immigration-cap-wins-city-backing.do. One