Conservative party

So, Cameron and Clegg end the summer break much as they started it: with a public statement on the aims and successes of the coalition government. Their article in today's Sunday Telegraph hops across all the usual touchstones – reform, deficit reduction, people power, and all that – but it lands with an unusually combative splash. In anticipation of tomorrow night's bellwether vote on the AV referendum and redrafted constituency boundaries, the two party leaders write: "This is an important moment for political renewal. We have different views on the future of our voting system. But we both recognise that there are genuine concerns about the current system. And we emphatically agree that the decision is not, in any case, for government alone...

Curious times, getting curiouser, for Nick Clegg. The Lib Dem leader might have thought that bringing his party into government would ensure him a triumphant reception at their conference in two weeks. But, instead, he faces a number of stories that could unsettle proceedings. Today, we hear that more Liberal Democrat councillors have resigned in what they claim is protest at the cuts being implemented by central government. What's more, a number of Lib Dem figures have added their voices to the general cacophony surrounding Andy Coulson. And that's before we consider the underlying, but most urgent, threat to the stability of the coalition: the Lib Dems' spluttering poll position. But Clegg should not be unduly concerned.

As we drift into the weekend, Labour are stepping up their attacks on Andy Coulson. Already today, Tom Watson, Alan Johnson, John Prescott and Chris Bryant have all drawn noisy attention to the allegations made in that New York Times Magazine article about phone tapping and the News of the World – and their efforts have already pushed the story to the top of the BBC news agenda. Indeed, Bryant has even called for David Cameron to sack Coulson. Labour types will no doubt repeat that message constantly over the next few days. So far, the Tories are standing behind their comms chief. A statement from No.10 reiterated that Coulson "totally and utterly denies" the allegations made against him.

Amid all the feverish commotion about cuts, it's easy to forget that it took the Tories until November 2008 to ditch Labour's spending plans - and, indeed, that it was barely a year ago when George Osborne first mentioned the c-word in public. Even David Cameron admits that this delay was his biggest mistake. It weakened his party's claim to foresight, and gave them less time to embed a new narrative about the economy before the election. So it's noteworthy that Alistair Darling exhumed this mistake on the airwaves earlier, telling the Beeb that "the Tories supported [our spending plans] until the end of 2008." This may sound like a cheap shot at Cameron and Osborne, but I expect we'll hear more of it in coming months.

Strange but true: the Cameroons are wary of a Labour Party led by David Miliband. The Guardian's Nick Watt has been eavesdropping and he's gathered a few choice quotes. Kool-aid drinking Tories say: "David Cameron said the candidate he hoped for was Ed Miliband, and the candidate he most feared was David Miliband."  "On the whole we would prefer if Ed Miliband won. His analysis that Labour has to go for a traditional Labour vote, rather than the middle classes, is absolutely wrong. The Ed Miliband analysis will lead them into big trouble." In spite of his best efforts, David Miliband is likely to win.

If there's one observation to make about Ed Balls's speech this morning it's that it's punchy stuff. His main point is that the coalition are "growth deniers" – not only do their "austerity and cuts" risk a slide back into recession, but they're also unnecessary. He explains: Attlee didn't make his "first priority ... to reduce the debts built up during second world war," and he left us with the welfare state – so why should we cut spending now? Et cetera, et cetera. These are, more or less, all arguments that we've heard from Balls before. But this is definitely the most concentrated form they have ever taken. It's an unrelenting barrage of Brownite economics. As always with Balls, there are exaggerations, inconsistencies and half-truths aplenty.

On Monday, I wrote that the question of whether the Budget is fair or not will "pursue the coalition more doggedly than any other". Yesterday, we saw just how dogged that pursuit will be. But there's no need for the coalition to panic as Mark Hoban did on the Today Programme yesterday. Instead, with policies from welfare reform to low taxes for low-income earners, they have built a firm redoubt from which to stage a counterattack. They can put the chase to their opponents. It is encouraging to see Nick Clegg do just that with an effective article in the FT today. He was bluntly dismissive of the IFS report yesterday, calling the organisation's work "partial".

Today's GCSE results demonstrate the tremendous success of City Academies, a hugely heartening trend given that this formula - which was so slowly rolled out under the Labour legislation which introduced them - can now be rapidly implemented under the new Academies Act. It's always been a con to look at the absolute results of Academies, as under Labour the only schools given such status were schools that were doing poorly. What matters is improvement. Let's take the three Academies groups and look at the ratio of  pupils winning five good GCSEs (i.e. A-C including English and Maths). In the The Harris Federation, which now runs nine schools, there was a 10 point increase. In the ARK academies, a 13 point increase. In the ULT Academies, an 8 point increase.