Politics

Read about the latest UK political news, views and analysis.

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

Quiz Clegg

Nick Clegg has kindly agreed to a Q&A session with Coffee House.  Obviously, he’ll be providing the answers.  But – as for the questions – that’s where you come in. Post your questions for Clegg in the comments sections below.  And, in a week-or-so’s time, we’ll pick out the best ten – be they high-minded or irreverent – and put them to the Lib Dem leader.  He’ll get back to us all a few days later.  And the commenters whose questions are chosen will all win Coffee House t-shirts. Time to get posting… UPDATE: The 10 best questions have now been chosen.  Find them over at this post. 

James Forsyth James Forsyth

How the tax system discourages work

One of the great scandals of this government is how many obstacles there are to people moving up the economic ladder. The Red Book (page 62) reveals that more than 1.8 million people are caught in a 60 percent marginal tax rate—as they earn more they lose access to tax credits and welfare benefits and also have to pay tax on the additional income that they are earning—which is an increase of more than a million since Labour came to power. This hardly encourages people to work their way up.   Much of the blame for this falls on Gordon Brown’s absurdly complicated tax credits system. Word is that Stephen Byers

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Getting spending down

Aside from British budget madness, as Labour and the Tories argue about how much they’d push state spending up, the rest of the world talks about getting spending down. Yesterday, the Swedish press celebrated the fact that their “expenditure reform” (why don’t we hear that phrase here?) is working so well that they have lost their status as the world’s highest-taxing country – passing this dubious honour to Denmark. By year-end, Sweden’s tax burden will be 47.8% with plans to hit 45%.

Peter Hoskin

Budget roundup

The consensus in today’s papers?  That yesterday’s Budget was unexciting.  No surprises.  No radical policy ideas.  A “safe Budget”, according to the FT.  Or just plain “dull”, as the Guardian less-charitably puts it. Many concentrate on the booze price hikes, with the Times calling it the “hangover Budget”.  And there’s some consternation at defence spending and business taxation. The Telegraph lands some strong blows.  Jeff Randall does a good demolition job on the public finances.  Iain Martin highlights just how bad yesterday’s Budget – and the past decade – was for the middle classes.  Whilst Charles Clover dispels the idea that this was a “green Budget”. And, as always, Steve Richards is well-worth reading in the Independent. A

Wednesday

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Coke now cheaper than cider? Only in Brown’s Britain…

Fraser Nelson again (emphasis added): The biggest story in today’s Budget – ie, what will hit the public immediately – is the booze hikes. From 6pm tonight, they take effect. An extra 4p on a pint of beer, 3p on a glass of wine (touchingly, the Red Book says 175ml is typical – has anyone from the Treasury ordered a glass recently?), and 55p on a 70cl bottle of spirits. These increases will rise at 2% in future years on top on inflation (itself expected to be 2%). So, congratulations Gordon: a line of cocaine (on Dec07 street prices) is now cheaper than half a pint of cider. What a

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Coffee House’s Budget Coverage

Here is a selection of our Budget coverage, do check back tomorrow for more analysis and if you want to read our thoughts as they unfolded through the day just keep scrolling.    Matthew Elliott and Corin Taylor explain why the Budget will just make things worse  Matthew d’Ancona reveals the private Tory response to the Budget Fraser Nelson calculates the true extent of the national debt Andrew Neil eviscerates those binge borrowers, Brown and Darling  Peter Hoskin points out how squeezed the middle classes already are And Fraser Nelson explains how Darling’s tax changes have made a half of cider more expensive than a line of cocaine.

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Another Balls up

You would have thought that by now the Labour front bench would have learned not to heckle David Cameron as one of Cameron’s strengths at the Despatch Box is his ability to put down a heckler. At his first Prime Minister’s Question Time some shouting from Hilary Armstrong, the then Labour chief whip, gave Cameron the chance to establish his authority and today Ed Balls’ interjections gave him the chance to score some points and rev up his troops. John Rentoul has a scathing post about Balls’ behaviour up at Open House claiming that Cameron was “saved” by Balls’ heckling. Personally, I think that’s a little harsh on the Tory

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Say what?!

Did any Coffee Housers catch what Ed Balls said? David Cameron mentioned the huge tax burden during his budget response and Balls shouted “so what?”. Or that’s Cameron’s version. The Secretary of State for Schools and Children now claims he said “so weak” and was referring to Cameron overall. But look at the spiralling debt, and “so what” sums up Browns attitude perfectly.

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Labour on the back foot

Today’s Budget made clear that we are in for a protracted period of political trench warfare. Darling’s speech was cautious in the extreme while the Tory response was hardly bold. However, the Tories have to be cheered by the contrast with last year’s Budget when Brown felt confident enough to try and kill off the Tories with his pretend tax cut and Cameron’s aim was simply survival. Now, it is Labour that is desperate just to get through the day.

Michael Fallon

Badly-prepared Britain

Dull, dull, hopelessly dull.  This is a Chancellor who dithered over Northern Rock, dithered over capital gains tax, and now can’t even decide whether the plastic bags levy should be voluntary or compulsory.   Drinkers, motorists, small businesses will all pay more tax because Labour has failed to control spending and borrowing in the good years.  Now they admit that the budget will remain in deficit until 2011, five years later than planned.   Britain is badly prepared for the coming slow-down. Michael Fallon is MP for Sevenoaks and the senior Conservative on the Treasury Select Committee

Matthew Dancona

Unfunded spending

My prize for comment of the day goes to CS responding to my earlier post on Patricia Hewitt: “Just saw Old Pat on the TV slagging off her opponents’ ‘unfunded policies’. If the government has a budget deficit which it keeps having to revise upwards, doesn’t that mean that its own spending is unfunded?” This is a simple but brilliant point. We will hear the mantra “unfunded policies” from Labour more often than I care to mention: at present the figure alleged by Gordon and co. is £10 billion-worth of such Tory measures. But – even assuming this is an accurate figure – £10 billion is small potatoes compared to

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

A bundle of debt

If you’re sitting down, have a look at this government debt projection. One of my favourite parts of the Budget is the Maastricht Treaty debt, calculated under a definition the Treasury cannot wangle. Have a look at this and remember – you’re paying for it.    Debt, £billion 2006-07 574 2007-08 616 2008-09 679 2009-10 728 2010-11 771 2011-12 809 2012-13 844 Source: HM Treasury, Budget 2008, p.184

Matthew Dancona

The Tory response

Some initial responses on the Tory side: 1) The troops are delighted with Cameron’s performance which was very assured: they think their man is getting better, learning on the job. The “gradient of leadership”, as one former Cabinet Minister described it to me, is heading in the right direction.  2) Darling is broken. The target has to be Brown. But this strategy depends upon the public definitively reversing its opinion of Gordon as a safe pair of hands. Some anxiety that this reputation has been tarnished rather than shattered.  3) What is the Tory strategy now? As Andrew pointed out, why stick to Labour spending plans if borrowing is already

James Forsyth James Forsyth

A Mail order Budget

I suspect that the government will be quite pleased if this Budget is nothing more than a one day story. There was no headline-or-vote-grabbing initiative in it. Instead Darling chose to raise taxes on the safest of targets, drinkers. Darling must be hoping, though, that by hopping on the Mail’s ban the bag bandwagon, he has guaranteed himself favourable coverage in at least one paper.  

Matthew Dancona

Unflattering comparisons

The most pathetic aspect of Darling’s speech, just reiterated by Patricia Hewitt on the BBC’s coverage, was the recourse to comparisons with the last Tory government. Every administration, especially one that begins its life with an unambiguous landslide, feeds off the public’s desire not to turn back the clock. For years after 1997, Tony Blair was able to say: No Turning Back to the Tories (or, more specifically, to the dire Major era). But it is almost 11 years since a Conservative last held a red box or sat in a ministerial limousine. The teenagers who will vote for the first time in (say) 2010 were five years old when

Matthew Dancona

Targeting Brown

No room for manoeuvre: that is David Cameron’s mantra in response to Darling’s “resilience and stability” formula. The theme could hardly be simpler: we failed to put aside money for a rainy day (or “mend the roof” while the sun was shining, to use George Osborne’s metaphor). Now, Cameron says, we have no scope to spend wisely or cut taxes significantly. The politics of this Budget is absolutely straightforward. Do the punters look at Brown and Darling and, however grudgingly, see them as the greybeards best placed to steer us through uncertain times? Or are the voters psychologically preparing themselves to give Team Cameron a turn at the wheel? Now

Peter Hoskin

Cameron v Balls

Cameron’s enjoying a bit of a duel with Ed Balls.  After the latter again muttered something under his breath, Cameron responded: “Thank you.  I know he’s the Minister for Children, but he doesn’t have to behave like one.” 

Andrew Neil

But what would the Tories do?

Cameron is making an effective attack on Darling and his non-Budget. He is rightly concentrating on the government’s consistent and substantial underestimating of budget deficits. But if the deficits are really that bad, then why do Cameron’s Tories promise to match Labour’s tax and spend for the next three years?

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Not a Budget performance from Cameron

Cameron, also sporting a purple tie, is delivering one of his stronger performances. He has some eye-catching stats—Britain is in the same debt league as Pakistan, Hungary and Egypt—and sounds more comfortable talking about economics than he normally does and I’m not just saying this because Cameron just said that he wouldn’t introduce across the board tax increases on alcohol.