Ed balls

One letter, that’s all it takes. After 38 City types wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph this morning, urging George Osborne to drop the 50p rate of income tax, Westminster types have been chirruping on about it ever since. All three party leaders have had their say, except, so far as I can tell, Ed Miliband — although Ed Balls stood in for him anyway. Of all the responses, it is David Cameron’s that is the most noteworthy and perhaps even surprising. Speaking about deficit reduction on the Jeremy Vine Show earlier, the PM was unequivocal: ‘We have to try and do this in a way that is fair

David Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on the Cannes summit was dominated by the question of increasing Britain’s dues to the IMF. Cameron stressed that his message to the Eurozone countries was “sort yourselves out and then we will help”. He also tried to offer reassurance that the IMF would not contribute to any eurozone-specific bailout fund. But after Ed Miliband’s response, the Prime Minister tried to counter-attack. He began by saying of the Labour leader’s speech, “I don’t know who writes this rubbish” which drew one of Ed Balls’ infamous calm down gestures. Cameron then offered an aggressive defence of the IMF, calling it an “organisation that

While the Coalition is split over Europe, Labour does not look like they are in a much better position. Ed Miliband told the BBC that he was in favour of the Euro; Ed Balls would presumably tackle anyone to avoid that becoming the party’s policy. Meanwhile Douglas Alexander, Labour’s brainy Shadow Foreign Secretary, has yet to make a game-changing intervention. Their predicament is obvious. Should Labour accept the narrative of renegotiation but opt for different areas to opt out of than those favoured by the Tories? Or should they, like William Borroughs, stand astride history and scream “stop”, arguing for a pro-European position? Seemingly caught between the two views, the

The growth number for the third quarter of this year is out, and it’s a little bit better than expected: 0.5 per cent. Many economists were saying that we’d have to hit around 0.4 per cent to recoup the growth lost to the Royal Wedding and Japanese Tsunami in Q2, so we’ve managed that. But, that aside, this is not the time for party poppers and champagne corks. It may not be Econopocalypse, but it’s not Mega Growth either. We are still living in a bleak, borderline stagflationary environment. Besides, I still reckon that we oughtn’t get especially worked up about these quarterly figures anyway. For starters, the obsession over

The games have started a day early, folks. The latest quarterly growth figures are set to be released tomorrow morning, but already Ed Balls is waxing insistent about what they have to be: “Simply to stay on track for the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent forecast, already downgraded three times, we will need to see growth in the third quarter of 1.3 per cent. And to reach the OECD’s latest and more pessimistic forecast, we will need to see a figure next week of 0.9 per cent.” To be fair — and this is not something you’ll read often on Coffee House — the Shadow Chancellor has a point,

Labour may have a narrow leads in the polls, but they continue to lag behind the Tories on the public’s number one issue: the economy. Today’s ComRes poll finds that just 18 per cent trust Eds Miliband and Balls “to make the right decisions about the economy”, compared to 30 per cent for Cameron and Osborne. Worse, the two Eds don’t even have the confidence of the majority of Labour voters: only 48 per cent trust them on the economy. YouGov also find Labour behind when it comes to the economy. 30 per cent think the Conservatives would handle it best, while just 26 per cent think Labour would. And

So, CoffeeHousers, are Eds Balls and Miliband a gruesome twosome or the most sparkling partnership since Torvill and Dean? I ask only because they’re really pushing the double-act shtick today. There’s their first-ever joint interview in the Evening Standard, for instance, in which they reminisce about the Shadow Chancellor’s 30th Birthday party, among other things. And then there was their joint appearance to officially launch Labour’s ‘plan for growth’ campaign this afternoon. They were talking policy, but there was also a strong emphasis on their personal relationship: eye contact, anecdotes, that sort of thing. Blair and Brown we are not, they seemed to be saying. As for the policy, if

William Hague’s speech to conference today wasn’t the barn-burner of years past. It did include some jabs at Balls and Miliband. Hague joked that “their shadow Chancellor was Gordon Brown’s right hand man. And their leader was right hand man to the right hand man.”  But the overall tone was serious. Politically, two things struck me as significant about the speech. First, Hague showed how determined the Tories are to play the Cameron card. The speech ended with a long tribute to the Prime Minister which called him “the leader for a better future”. The Tories are convinced that of the three party leaders, Cameron is the only one who

Miliband’s speech was meant to reach beyond the hall. “I aspire to be your Prime Minister,” he told country, “to fulfil the promise of Britain.” But, after an hour long speech, it is not wholly clear what the “promise of Britain” is. Miliband offered the hand of partnership to small businesses, the ordinary working family, those who want a cheap further education, working mothers, but it was not clear what they would obtain from the Labour leader. This was a speech virtually bereft of policy direction or a coherent theme. We have a clear idea of what and whom Miliband is against, but very little idea of what he is

Ed Balls’ choreographed apologies earlier today included the acknowledgment that “we should have adopted tougher controls on migration from Eastern Europe”. He first adopted this stance during last year’s leadership election, when he offered an undeliverable but popular objective to court the ‘Gillian Duffy tendency’, who had turned away from New Labour. What began as classic opposition politics is now the party line, with Ed Miliband telling delegates yesterday, “We got it wrong in a number of respects including understating the level of immigration from Poland, which had a big effect on people in Britain.” And there are stories in today’s Mail and the Express about the deleterious effects of

Douglas Alexander has just told Andrew Neil that he will campaign for Scotland to stay in the union with ‘anybody else who wants to join me’. This opens up a difference with Alexander’s normally close political ally, Jim Murphy. Murphy, Scottish Secretary in the last Labour government and currently shadow defence secretary, recently declared that he wouldn’t share a platform with David Cameron during any referendum campaign. When asked about this earlier in the day, Alexander said that he was more interested in making the argument about the value of the union rather than arranging the chairs. But Alexander does seem to hold a different position than Murphy on the