George osborne

The Institute for Fiscal Studies enjoys quasi-divine status in Westminster: chancellors and their shadows bother it for its blessing, and Budget Day is never complete until its judgment has been passed. Both parties have bent a suppliant knee before the institute in the past, but the IFS became particularly important to Labour after it declared last autumn that George Osborne’s policies to be ‘regressive‘. This is why the IFS report on the tax system, released today, is important. The review, conducted by Sir James Mirrlees, is a damning indictment on tax system that has fallen from 5th to 95th in the World Economic Forum’s tax competitiveness rankings. Mirrlees’ findings have far

George Osborne made a firm statement on the Vickers report this afternoon; if he felt uneasy about the proposed abolition of his seat or Natalie Rowe’s latest sally against him it didn’t show. As expected, he accepted Vickers’ proposals “in principle”, giving himself and his coalition partners enough room to manoeuvre within an agreed timetable that is equitable to both parties. Osborne also said that the annual £7 billion burden of Vickers’ capital requirements “should fall on shareholders and the wholesale debt holders, not small depositors or taxpayers.” Politically, it’s imperative that he achieves that objective. There is yet uncertainty on the subject and Barclays sought a clarification earlier this afternoon.

If anyone had any doubts about how difficult the politics of banking reform and planning would be for the Conservatives, they’ll be dispelled by a glance at a couple of tomorrow’s front pages.  ‘Osborne to let banks off the hook—for now’ screams The Independent. This a reference to the Chancellor’s plans to consult with the banks on the conclusions of the Vickers report—which the government has seen but is officially published tomorrow morning. The political problem for Osborne is that anything other than the immediate implementation of Vickers’ recommendations will be seen as a favour to the banks. But pushing the reforms through now could undermine an already weak economy.

George Osborne and Eric Pickles’ joint op-ed in the Financial Times on planning reform is meant to send the message that the coalition won’t back down on the issue. They warn that “No one should underestimate our determination to win this battle”. Allies of Pickles are pointing out that these planning proposals are different from the NHS reforms or forestry, both issues on which the government did u-turn, because they are crucial to the coalition’s growth strategy and fully supported by Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street. One other thing that separates planning from the issues on which the government has u-turned is the confidence Numbers 10 and 11 have

Banking reform has always been one of those issues that was going to test the unity of the coalition. Indeed, it was the subject of the very first inter-coalition wrangle when back in May 2010 George Osborne and Vince Cable tussled over who would chair the Cabinet committee on banking reform.   To date, these differences have been held in check by the fact that the coalition is waiting for the recommendations of the John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking. But with the final draft of the Vickers Report being published on 12 September, these splits are starting to open up again.   Cable and the Liberal Democrats would like,

There’s a big coalition split coming down the road. Next month the Vickers’ review into banking reform, which is going to suggest a ring-fencing of the investment and retail arms of banks, will come out. The Liberal Democrats — led by Vince Cable — will push for the instant implementation of the report’s recommendations. The Treasury will argue that banks need to be given time to introduce these new rules. The result will be, as one senior Lib Dem source tells this morning’s FT, ‘a big fight’.   The tricky question for Cameron and Osborne is how do they win this argument when there’s a visceral desire for tough measures

George Osborne was right to boast in the Commons that Britain has the “second highest rate of net job creation in the G7”. Coffee House recently pointed out that all of the increase is accounted for by foreign-born workers. But what if you narrow the definition to foreign nationals? We put in an information request to the Office for National Statistics and the below information came back. It is quite striking. Over the 12-month period to which Osborne refers, 90.1 per cent of the extra employment amongst the working-age population can be accounted for by an increase in foreign nationals working in the UK. Here are the figures. The phenomenon of pensioners returning to