Treasury

John Rentoul draws attention to a new ComRes poll that goes some way towards explaining George Osborne’s predicament when it comes to managing government finances. Put simply, the public is not interested in public spending cuts. On the contrary, British voters want to see public spending increase. Sure, they might agree that, all things being equal and in the broader scheme of matters, it might be a good idea if the government balanced the books but all things are rarely equal and as soon as you get into the narrow, particular view of these matters it becomes clear that, actually, the only departmental budget voters want to decimate is that

If Mark Carney had any reservations about his move to Threadneedle Street later this year, he might now add to his list regular sessions with the Treasury Select Committee. His three-and-a-half hour hearing included a quiz from Committee member David Ruffley on his ability to explain capital ratios and other terms, questions on how many mistakes he’d be happy for staff to make, whether he wanted to rename the Bank’s Court, and whether he’d judge his success on the return of growth to the economy during his tenure. The MPs also started their session with a bit of a grump about his £874,000 pay package, although as James Barty argued

Aside from Ed Balls’ attack on George Osborne for going ‘on the piste’ in Davos, Treasury question time in the Commons today was interesting not for what Labour did or didn’t have to say, but for some of the pushes from the Tory backbench on helping those on low incomes. Sometimes it’s the pattern of the questions that matters more than the individual answers. Many of the questions were pitches for the Budget, which also gave ministers the opportunity to not really answer them. Robert Halfon asked about reintroducing the 10p income tax rate, to which Greg Clark said he noted the MP’s bid for the Budget, adding: ‘But he

The irrepressible Lord Oakeshott is making mischief again: he’s using Sir Mervyn King’s comments about Goldman Sachs bonuses today to attack David Cameron and George Osborne. He’s just told Coffee House the following: ‘The Governor speaks for all on Goldman’s greed. He shows leadership where the Prime Minister and Chancellor stayed submerged. Starbucks are an also ran in the tax avoidance stakes compared to world champions like Goldmans.’ Then he took another covert shot at the Treasury by referring – not by name – to the appointment of former Goldman employee Mark Carney as the next Bank of England Governor: ‘Big banks like Goldman can’t have it both ways. If

Few politicians have put as much thought in to the team around them as George Osborne. He is a collector of talented people. Unlike most Tories, he has gone outside of CCHQ and parliament for nearly every senior appointment he’s made. But I understand that after Christmas he’ll be losing one of the most important members of his operation, Poppy Mitchell-Rose. Mitchell-Rose has acted as Osborne’s fixer and gatekeeper since he first became shadow Chancellor. On the long—and sometimes bumpy—road from opposition to government, she has been a calm sherpa who has dealt with a host of problems before they have even arisen. But she is now moving to Washington,

It looks like George Osborne will put the planned fuel duty rise on hold again, in order to avoid another Tory rebellion and potential government defeat in the Commons. This battle has its origins in a Labour Budget: that of 2009, in which Alistair Darling introduced a fuel duty escalator whereby fuel duty would increase by inflation-plus-a-penny every April from 2010 to 2013. In his 2011 Budget, Osborne announced that he was abolishing the escalator and instead cutting fuel duty by 1p per litre. From January 2012 onwards, the escalator was to be replaced by a ‘fair fuel stabiliser’, under which the duty rises by inflation-plus-a-penny when oil prices are

The Liberal Democrats are playing a game of whac-a-mole on welfare at the moment: each time they think they’ve blocked one cut they don’t like, another one pops up. Last night a mole they’d already whacked a year ago appeared again: decoupling benefits from inflation. The Newsnight scoop is that Whitehall is considering ending inflation-linked rises for many benefit payments – although the word is that this would not include payments to those with disabilities. This would be part of efforts to cut a further £10 billion from the welfare bill, which the Lib Dems oppose overall. Last winter the Lib Dems blocked a similar move from the Treasury, which

There’s war in Whitehall. The Sunday Times devotes its p2 lead (£) to the fact that Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, is ‘sceptical’ of the Universal Credit, the key to Iain Duncan Smith’s revolutionary welfare reforms. The newspaper has gathered its intelligence by reading the leading article of this week’s Spectator, and repeats our point that civil servants will interpret Heywood’s reservations as a ‘go-slow order’. Here is what our leader column says: ‘Treasury officials have been against Duncan Smith from the start, due to the threat which Universal Credit posed to their beloved tax credits. Ambition in itself is looked down upon by ministers who deride ‘IDS’s grand projet’. Sir Jeremy

Much is being made today of reports that George Osborne will drop his fiscal target in his autumn statement on 5 December. Isabel reported earlier that, faced with breaking his own rule, Osborne will abandon it rather than implement more cuts to meet it. All the fuss seems to stem from a note by Citi Reasearch last Friday. You can read the whole thing here, but here’s a summary. Like Gordon Brown, Osborne has two fiscal rules. Neither says anything about eliminating the deficit, or even halving it. The first — called the ‘fiscal mandate’ — is ‘to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget by the end of a rolling, five-year

It’s easy to forget that the Budget took place five long months ago when it is still being unpicked and argued over now. The Treasury Select Committee published the  responses from the government and the Office for Budget Responsibility to its report on that Budget today, and it includes a curious denial from the Treasury. Andrew Tyrie and his colleagues on the committee had criticised the amount of pre-briefing and leaking of the budget that took place in the weeks before George Osborne stood up in the Commons, arguing that ‘coalition government is not a justification for budget leaks’. This is what the Treasury said in response: No Treasury officials,

In Michael Lewis’s The Big Short, one of the few Wall Street analysts to bet against the US housing market explains his decision to short Merrill Lynch: We have a simple thesis. There is going to be a calamity, and whenever there is a calamity, Merrill is there. Sure enough, Merrill was there when the housing market crashed. Merrill was so there, in fact, that it ceased to exist as an independent company. The smart guys weren’t as smart as they thought they were. I think of that anecdote every time it becomes clear that HM Treasury has been interfering in affairs that are, properly speaking, none of its business.

David Cameron is using the Olympics today to strike a more upbeat tone after yesterday’s GDP gloom. The Prime Minister is speaking at 10am at a global investment conference to pitch for business from 180 chief executives from around the world. Cameron will tell the conference that he is ‘determined that Britain will be on of the great success stories’ in rebuilding its economy, and will say: ‘There will be no more passionate supporter of Team GB than me. But I’ve got a job to do this summer. And a big part of that job is to get behind British business… and do everything I can to help secure the