Economy

From his roost high on the backbenches, David Davis commands a luminescent eminence that he would not have had if he were a frontbencher. And as the current guardian of traditional right-wing Toryism, his words are clear against the often muddy context of coalition. Talking to the Mail's Andrew Pierce and Amanda Platell, he offers George Osborne and David Cameron some sagacious advice. He joins the chorus, now stalked by Ed Miliband, which urges the government to articulate its growth and recovery rhetoric. ‘We cannot be defined by a purely cuts agenda. If the only message the public takes away from the events of the next few months is one of retrenchment and loss of services, politically at least, we will have failed.

Admittedly, this is but an item of marginalia in the notebook of British politics – but I'd appreciate CoffeeHousers' views on it nonetheless. I'm talking about the Tories' efforts to squeeze an apology out of Labour for the state of the public finances. This is something that they've been trying to do since the election, but the strategy has been reheated in the aftermath of Ed Miliband's election. As Sayeeda Warsi put it on Saturday, "what I noticed in his acceptance speech was that there was … no apology for the role that he had played in the current economic mess." Other Tory folk have called for that to be put right. I'm inclined to take a dim view of this.

Politics Home has published an important poll, showing the staggering level of support for Vince Cable’s conference speech. The government will be pleased that its political attack on the financial services industry’s continued excess at time of austerity is cutting through; on the other hand, this could be seen as support for Cable’s emotive rhetoric. Worse still, the poll suggests that traditional Tory voters are the only group for whom Nick Clegg is more impressive than Cable. The business secretary has to be kept in government – the coalition can't afford to have a charismatic wreaking havoc from the backbenches. Support for Vince Cable conference speech Who are the impressive Liberal Democrat politicians?

What are we to make of the fact that No.10 gave the thumbs-up to Vince Cable’s bizarre anti-capitalist rhetoric today? “Capitalism takes no prisoners and it kills competition where it can,” he fumed – and you can argue that, technically, he is paraphrasing Adam Smith. But he has been in politics long enough to know what signal his speech sent out (and the reaction it would trigger). Mood music counts for a lot in politics, and in business. And the mood music from this government sounds like a bunch of politicians happy to tax the bejesus out of the high-paid - regarding them as ATM machines to be raided, rather than wealth creators to be welcomed. It's time to ask what harm all this posturing is doing.

After stumbling in his crusade for a graduate contribution, Vince Cable seemed to go a bit quiet. But this morning he's roared back into the newspapers with another attack on coalition policy. The target of his anger is, once again, the immigration cap – but he's being far less equivocal about it this time around. The way in which the cap is being implemented this year, he tells the FT, is "very damaging to the UK economy." To force the point home, he says he has a  "file full" of companies who are suffering because of it. And, for good measure, the word "damaging" gets deployed once or twice more.

Watch or read much of the economics coverage in Britain and you sometimes get the sense that we're entering the final round of a peculiar game. Let's call it 'Russian Roulette for Economists'. The rules are simple: teams of academics and economically-literate politicos line up on either side of an issue and hurl abuse at one another. The winner will be declared when something significant changes in the macro-economic position of the UK. The game was played when Britain entered the ERM (those who said it would be a disaster won). The current double dip debate is another example. This time, the principal players on one side are the former Bank of England policymaker Professor David Blanchflower and the TUC general secretary Brendan Barber. On the other, is George Osborne.

‘The definition of an Independent Member of Parliament, viz., one that could not be depended upon.’ - Former British prime minister, the Earl of Derby to Queen Victoria. In the August 21 federal election down under, the Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard copped a stunning rebuke from the Australian people. Consider this: Tony Abbott’s centre-right Liberal-National Coalition won nearly half a million more votes than the Australian Labor Party. It secured more seats than the ALP (73 to 72 in the 150-seat House of Representatives). And the Labor administration became the first first-term government since 1931 to lose a parliamentary majority. So how does Labor claim a mandate to govern?

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.