George osborne

Osborne’s political economy

George Osborne’s speech to the Tory spring conference today showed the classic left-right way in which he wants to frame the political debate about the economy ahead of the Budget on the 23rd of March.  In a move straight out of the election-winning centre-right playbook of the 80s, he attacked Balls and Miliband as “Two left-wing politicians who don’t understand anyone who wants to get up and get on, anyone who want a better life for their family, anyone who want to create wealth, and start a business, and create jobs, and leave something to their children.” He tried to portray the Conservatives as the antithesis of this, as the

Fuel for the fire

On any normal day, a missive from Tim Farron to George Osborne – urging him to axe the planned rise in fuel duty – would be striking enough. On a day when the Lib Dems finished sixth in a by-election, it has a whole lot more piquancy to it. I’m not saying that the Next Lib Dem Leader™ is trying to cause trouble, or even hastening to shore up support. He has, after all, been dutiful in defence of the coalition this morning, and he has been highlighting fuel costs for some time now. But Lib Dem backbenchers clearly have some demands for the government – and now’s the time

Hunt’s rising star

The decision on News Corp’s take-over of BSkyB has thrust Jeremy Hunt into the spotlight. The culture secretary is many Tories’ bet to be the next leader of the party. Hunt is ambitious even by political standards: during the Brown bounce he canvassed opinion as to whether he should stand in the Tory leadership contest that would follow an election defeat, and has a John Major like ability to make factions in the party feel like he is one of them. Add to this, a good television manner and one can see why people think he’ll go far. One of the odd things about politics is that there is no

Promoting Cameron from a party leader to a national leader

Danny Finkelstein’s paean of praise (£) to Andrew Cooper, the PM’s new director of political strategy, contains several interesting lines.  Finkelstein says that his former flat mate’s biggest challenge is, ‘Devising a strategy for changes in the NHS so that a critical political battle isn’t lost disastrously’. This is yet another indication of how nervous Osborne and co are about Lansley’s reforms and reopening the NHS as a political issue. The second is him reporting that Cooper will tell ‘Cameron to be a national leader, rather than a party politician. Especially in the Commons.’ To date, Cameron has been — with some notable exceptions such as his statement on Bloody

Osborne goes on the offensive

Attack, attack, attack. That’s the temper of George Osborne’s article for the Guardian this morning, which sets about Labour’s economic credibility with a ferocious sort of glee. Perhaps the best passage is where he asks how many times Labour can spend their ubiquitous “bank tax,” but this is more pertinent to the recent debate: “Where does all this leave Ed Miliband’s newfound enthusiasm for the “squeezed middle”? Let’s pass over his failure in every interview to define it – his last effort included around 90% of taxpayers. Where we can all agree is that these are difficult times for family incomes. There are two root causes. One is global: rises

Three charts that complicate a simple focus on growth

GDP growth figures have become the barometer of choice for commentators trying to tell the political weather – a good measure of how the public will eventually fall in the faceoff between Osborne and Balls. The story goes that a return to sustained growth will mean a return to rising living standards.  That means a vindication of the government’s position, and a victory for the Chancellor. As a simple story, that makes sense if the pressures now facing Britain’s households are straightforwardly growth-related – if, in other words, we’re in a post-recession hangover that will vanish when growth returns. But there’s now mounting evidence of a deeper problem for living

Why Ed Balls shouldn’t brag if the OBR downgrades its growth forecasts

Some speculation (£) today that the Office for Budget Responsibility will shortly downgrade its 2011 growth forecast – and hence the growth forecast in next month’s Budget. If so, then you can expect Ed Balls to crow on and on about it. He did, after all, prime the attack in his recent clash with George Osborne across the dispatch box: “With consumer confidence falling, with inflation rising, with no bank lending agreement, no plan for jobs, no plan for growth, no plan B – does he really expect us to believe he can meet this forecast for economic growth this year or will he have to stand here at the

It’s the Q1 2011 growth figures that matter now

The Office for National Statistics’ preliminary figures for Q4 growth, released a few weeks ago, were a curious beast. They they were, suggesting that because of a snow-laden December our economy had started shrinking again, to the tune of -0.5 per cent. And yet so many other indicators were doing rather nicely: from activity in the services sector to the Exchequer’s tax take. Many people, myself included, suspected it was only a matter of time before the ONS revised that -0.5 figure into more positive territory. Now time has passed, and the ONS has just revised the Q4 figure downwards, not upwards. Their preliminary figure wasn’t quite right, they say.

What price a fuel duty stabiliser?

Last we heard, the government was considering what it should, and could, do to suppress rising fuel prices. I wonder whether they have now pencilled something into March’s Red Book. You see, after a swell of speculative fear triggered by events in the Middle East, the cost of oil is going up, up, up. Brent Crude touched $120 a barrel yesterday, the highest price since August 2008, although it eventually settled to around $111. Some observers predict it will soon exceed the previous record price of $150. Naturally, this threatens to unstitch the delicate fabric of the global economy – drastically rising oil prices could bring pervasive stagflation in their

The 50p tax in action

Today, we have seen the 50p tax in action: reflected in January’s bumper tax receipts. A jubilant John Rentoul has just tweeted: “Where is Fraser Nelson when you need him? The 50p income tax rate has brought in a ton of money. He said it would probably reduce revenue.” He is absolutely right – but not for the reasons he thinks. Were John self-employed, he’d know that the tax paid last month was in respect of the 2009-10 tax year – when the top rate of tax was 40p. Of course, many of the super-rich are on PAYE – but that has happened since last April. It doesn’t explain a

Fraser Nelson

Osborne shouldn’t spend the extra money

Lucky old George Osborne. The British economy is not in “meltdown,” but churning out tax revenue like a fruit machine. Figures out from the ONS today show that the tax haul for January alone was £58.4 billion – pushing the public finances into a surplus £3.7 billion for that month (an almighty £3.6 billion more than expected). If this rate continues (no reason why not, seeing as we’re all getting drunk on Mervyn King’s underpriced debt again), then Citi estimates he will have £8 billion more to play with than expected in the current financial year. So what will he do? Osborne’s decision will tell us plenty about what type

British jobs for whom?

Immigration isn’t a topic much discussed nowadays, because it’s one where the Tories and Lib Dems don’t agree. That’s a shame. Because there’s an urgent problem to be fixed in the British labour market: that every time the economy grows, it sucks in immigrant workers. If this dysfunction continues, it will finish Cameron. The News of the World (where yours truly is a columnist (£)) has today looked at the latest figures for this. I reprint them for CoffeeHousers below. They show that during that disastrous fourth quarter in 2010, where the economy shrank by 0.5 percent, the number of employed British-born people fell by 110,000. As grim as you’d

The coming coalition compromise on the banks

One of the questions that most fascinates Westminster is what would make Vince Cable walk out of the coalition Cabinet. Cable might be a diminished figure and have lost standing on the Lib Dem left by pushing through the tuition fees hike, but his departure would still shift the tectonic plates of politics. As James Kirkup blogs today, banking reform, or the lack thereof, is the most likely cause of Cable going nuclear. Cable is a firm believer that retail and investment banking need to be separated, a view that he pretty much reiterated on Marr this morning. Osborne and the Treasury are far more cautious on this front. Everyone

Clarke: Middle England hasn’t got a clue

Ken Clarke’s political career has had the resilience of a cockroach, but even he now seems to be cracking. Tim Montgomerie has shot a vicious broadside at Clarke’s dated politics in today’s Mail. And Clarke, for his part, has given an interview to the Telegraph, where he gives a convincing impression of a man completely out of touch. Clarke concedes (just) that the ECHR needs reform, but he defends its supreme jurisdiction: ‘Some people are very angry [about prisoner voting], but we should be able to resolve that. The jurisdiction of the [European] court remains the fraught issue. I don’t see how we can say that we don’t obey courts if we don’t want to.

Despite the difficulties, Project Merlin isn’t at all bad

Bankers make estate agents look popular and so any government deal with bankers that doesn’t involve kicking them is politically tricky. The Treasury, acutely aware of the politics of all this, are very keen to stress that the government ‘played hardball’ with Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS in the Project Merlin talks. The actual deal is not a bad one. The promised £10 billion pound increase in lending to small businesses is better than expected. On bonuses, the banks have got off relatively easily. But crucially the bonus pool will be smaller than last year and bank head’s bonuses will be dependent on meeting lending targets for small businesses.  

Osborne’s conjuring trick

Earlier today, the government unveiled Project Merlin, its attempt to link executive pay in banks to institutional lending, whilst driving down bonuses and increasing the Treasury’s revenue take. Here are its key components: Osborne welcomed ‘the most transparent pay regime in the world.  Executive pay will be linked to targets for gross lending; remuneration for the top ten highest paid staff in each financial institution will be subject to the approval their board’s remuneration committee; in 2012, all large banks will have to publish payment details for members of their board and the 8 most high paid staff members. He then promised a new deal for small business lending. There

Osborne bests the Man With A Past

Balls is a bit like a vampire – he has bite, but he works best in the darkness. In the House of Commons, with those lights shining on him, his powers drain. George Osborne had the better of him in their brief exchanges at Treasury Questions. Balls led on the snow joke. But Osborne had pre-empted that earlier, when he first stood up. Balls teased him about going to Klosters in the winter, but these things only work in newspapers where you can run a picture of Osborne in ski gear. It leaves the House cold.   The key Osborne line was that Balls is “the man with a past”

Fraser Nelson

What has Osborne done today?

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

Osborne quells some dissent with his latest ruse

This morning’s newspapers would have made grim reading for the government. The Department for Transport has been forced to reverse its helicopter privatisation plan, there are doubts that the baccalaureate will suit Michael Gove’s education reforms and diverse packs of hounds have converged on the Big Society fox – and this is a cruel bloodsport.  But, the master tactician has struck again. George Osborne’s sudden decision to raise an extra £800m through this year’s banking levy has relieved some pressure from the government. This is a minor operation by the standards of Osborne’s previous political coups, but it diverts attention and illustrates that the government is making some progress in the

Osborne v Balls at Treasury questions

Tomorrow is the first Osborne Balls Treasury Questions clash. It should be a fiery encounter. There’s little love lost between the two men, they are both aggressive despatch box performers  and the two of them know that their clash over the economy is likely to be the major factor in determining the next election result. Balls has a fair amount of material to work with: the disappointing growth—or, more accurately, non-growth—figures for the final quarter of last year, the limited success of the national insurance holiday for new small companies and the failure to publish a growth plan. Set against that is that Osborne will be able to accuse Balls