Gordon brown

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”

As shocks go, Politician Uses the Correct Statistic is not particularly electric stuff. But I was struck nonetheless by Cameron’s claim in his speech earlier that, “we still have the fourth largest military budget in the world.” You see, Gordon Brown used to exaggerate this figure by various sneaky methods – and so, by his account, we’d be second in the military spending league table, rather than around fifth. Whereas Cameron had it spot on. Here’s what the latest top ten looks like, going off the best measurement that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute knows (see their explanation here): On the face of it, this would appear to be

The Institute for Fiscal Studies are out prowling the airwaves again, and they bring happy and unhappy tidings for the coalition. On the happier side, at least presentationally speaking, is their assessment that, “those being hit the very hardest [by tax and benefit changes] are those on [a] higher level of earnings” – just as Cameron and Clegg suggest. But far less marketable is the IFS’s claim that 750,000 people will be pulled into the 40 per cent rate of tax as a result of the threshold being reduced from £37,400 to £35,001 this April.   To be fair to the government, they have at least been upfront about this

A weird, sprawling kind of speech from David Cameron in Davos this morning. It started off on an unusually, if expectedly, gloomy note: all talk of Europe’s debt-induced decline in the face of competition from India, China and Brazil. And he emphasised, of course, that Britain would, and should, stick to its current trajectory of “tough” deficit reduction. But it’s where it went from there that was more striking still. Cameron contrasted his position with that of “the pessimists”. These people, he claimed, have a charter which includes propositions such as, “we in Europe are incapable of solving our debt and deficit problems,” and, “we’re attached to liberal values that

  To the chagrin of CoffeeHousers, I have long rated Ed Balls and his abilities. He has a degree of brilliance, albeit tragically deployed in the services of a destructive economic agenda. But as we welcome him back, it’s worth reminding ourselves that his abilities are of a specific type. He understands economics (even though he did PPE) but his speciality is in creative accounting. His only tactic is to spend, borrow and cover both up by cooking the books. He is a trickster, not an economist. More Arthur Daley than Arthur Laffer. In my News of the World column today (£) I say he is dangerous to Labour as

The timing could hardly have been more resonant. On the day that Tony Blair is paraded, once again, in front of the Iraq Inquiry, Team Brown is firmly back in charge of the Labour party. For, I’m sure you’ve noticed CoffeeHousers, three of the four great shadow offices of state are occupied by former members of the Brown coterie: Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. The fourth belongs to someone who doesn’t sit easily in either half of the TB-GB divide: Douglas Alexander. The question, of course, is what this means for Labour’s economic policy. And the answer according to Miliband is “nothing much”. The Labour leader has been

Ed Miliband’s leadership may be young, but his trickery on the public finances is already well worn. We got it all in his interview with Andrew Marr earlier – and then some. There was the claim that Labour “paid down the debt” (that I dealt with here). There was the claim that Labour’s spending was responsible (my response here). And there was a straight-up lie about Miliband’s forecast for a double-dip. So far, so Brown. What caught my ear, though, was this exchange: Andrew Marr: I mean Tony Blair said in his memoir that by 2005, he was worried that the party was spending too much. And Alistair Darling said

Did he get cold feet? Or was his new spin-team overenthusiastic in their pre-briefing? We were told we’d get an apology from Ed Miliband in today’s speech, but instead he entrenched himself in his position that Labour did nothing wrong on the deficit. I’m surprised at this decision. Surely Ed Miliband understands, as his Shadow Chancellor understands, the central importance to an opposition party of economic credibility. That credibility will not return while Miliband bases his economic argument on a denial of the facts. First, and critically, he argues that Britain’s deficit was not a problem going into the crisis. Not only is this disputed by an impressive array of

Much of Ed Miliband’s Grand Confession on the economy is wearily familiar. I mean, we’ve known his take on the deficit for some time: that the drop in tax receipts from a crumbling financial sector was to blame, rather than Brown’s spending. And to have him argue that Labour should have made the economy less dependent on the City is just another way of saying exactly the same thing. But there is something new in there, too. Miliband is set to admit that Labour didn’t “talk the language of cuts” soon enough. Not that he’s saying Labour should have – or still should – cut deeper and faster, mind. It’s

Perhaps I’m alone in this, but David Cameron interviews better in print than he does on screen. He’s almost too polished on television. His supreme confidence and tendency to guffaw at his scripted jokes can grate. But in print his assurance has an affable, human quality. The Daily Mail has interviewed him today. Most of the piece is a lifestyle feature – Dave at home attending to Florence’s evening feed as he watches Newsnight. It is vacuous fare, but it strikes a brilliant contrast with Ed Miliband’s rout at the hands of the nation’s housewives on the Jeremy Vine Show, where there were echoes of Gordon Brown’s excruciating unease with

Ne’er mistake correlation with cause, I know. But, during the Brown premiership, the correlation between petrol prices and poll ratings was still pretty striking. Mike Smithson graphed it early last year, but the basic story was this: the Tories enjoyed their biggest poll lead over Labour when petrol prices were at their highest, and Labour closed the gap to only 1 percent when petrol prices were at their lowest. At the very least, it gives us a hypothesis to work from: prices up, the government suffers; prices down, the government recovers. And it looks as though we’ll be able to test that hypothesis soon enough. Today’s Express reports that –