Economy

Tomorrow is a Big Day for the Tories

Tomorrow's Word of the Day is 'Big'.  That is to say: the Tories are holding a Big Event, on the theme of the Big Society, and they've got all their Big Hitters out for the occasion.  In all, there'll be presentations from eleven shadow Cabinet members, followed by a speech from David Cameron.  You don't often see such a concentration of Tory firepower outside of conference season. What's clear, then, is that the Tories regard tomorrow as an important day for their election campaign.  And so they should.  Their Big Society agenda – aka, decentralisation – spans across some of their most encouraging policy ideas.

Osborne’s silent victory

I think Osborne’s main victory tonight would be to reassure those who thought him a clueless idiot. The left demonise him, and it’s easy for the right to despair at him too (yes, guilty). But the figure we saw tonight was calm, collected and assured – and I reckon this was his achievement. He allayed fears. Expectations of his performance would have been rock bottom, and he’d have surpassed them easily. He was playing it safe. Vince Cable did his after-dinner speaking comedy act (I met William Hague in the ‘spin room’ afterwards, who swears that some of Cables lines were nicked from his repertoire), and the studio audience loved him for it. But Cable is not going to be Chancellor, he can afford to take risks.

Brown and Cameron’s Commons clash serves as the warm-up for tonight’s debate

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have just been facing each other in the Commons chamber. Brown was notionally reporting back on the European summit meeting, but in relaity Brown and Cameron were setting the stage for the Chancellor’s debate tonight. Cameron claimed that there was a new dividing line in British politics, the Tories for ‘efficency and aspiration’ and Labour for ‘waste and taxes.’ Brown claimed that the Tories were indulging in panic measures and that their plans announced today would ‘withdraw the support that is necessary for the economy to have a sustained recovery.’ Brown might have some Keynesian economists on his side when he says this.

The Tories have a clear message on taxation

The Tories now have a clear message on personal taxation, ‘you’ll pay less under the Conservatives.’ Their announcement today that they will reverse, for seven in ten workers, Labour’s increase in the tax on jobs is welcome news. As I said in the Mail on Sunday, turning the spotlight on the National Insurance hike shows that Labour’s tax rises aren’t just going to hit people who earn more than £150,000 a year who are going to buy a house costing more than a million but anyone who earns more than £20,000 a year. Some are questioning whether National Insurance is the most effective tax to cut since  it is a hidden tax; most people have no idea how much NI they and their employers pay.

Back to his Tory best

George Osborne has just set the scene for tonight's Chancellors' debate by announcing something neither Darling or Cable will be able to match: a tax cut. It's a real one, it will benefit some 20m workers and (best of all) it will be paid for by spending cuts. While the amount is not huge - everyone on under £43,000 will be £150 better off - it indicates the route the Conservatives would go down in government.   Trusting people with their own money, and stoking the recovery by cutting the tax on jobs. Here are the main points: 1) Osborne would raise National Insurance threshold in Apr11. One of the many booby traps Brown laid for the country after the next election is a national insurance hike of 1 percent, for both employer and employee.

Confirmed: Tories to “block” Labour’s planned national insurance hike 

We'll have more details tomorrow but, for now, Tim Montgomerie has the lowdown.  As I said a few days ago, this is a smart move from the Tories, and gives them a good message to deploy on the doorsteps.  Indeed, Tim has already drafted it for them: "Seven out of ten working people will be better off if Cameron becomes Prime Minister." UPDATE: The Telegraph has more information here.  Looks as though the Tories might keep the rise for those above a certain income (the Telegraph speculates £37,400).  Either way, we'll know for sure tomorrow morning.

Osborne must ask: why trust the party which ran up the credit card bill in the first place?

Public sector net borrowing, public sector net debt, total managed expenditure, departmental expenditure limits ... zzzzz.  One of the main reasons why Labour has been able to fashion an economic narrative, against all odds, is because they can rely on some pretty esoteric language.  Thus debt becomes interchangeable with deficit, and cuts can be hidden under layers and layers of different spending metrics.  Perhaps more than anything, this almost-casual deception is Brown's greatest skill. Which is why it's encouraging that the Tories have tried to demystify some of the fiscal debate, putting it into language that everyone can follow.  They've set out their "more for less" argument by referring to the practices of supermarkets.

How Brown would get Darling out of the Treasury

After reading Brown's claims in the Guardian today, this Kill A Minister mechanism in his speech today rather jumped out at me: "I will set out a clear and public annual contract for each new Cabinet Minister, detailing what I expect them and their department to deliver to the British people, and that their continued appointment is dependent on their delivery just as it would be in a business or any other organisation." I mean, you can just imagine what Alistair Darling's first "contract" would look like: You, the Chancellor, will undertake to deliver the following to the British people: i) Economic growth of 5 percent in 2010-11 ii) A sufficient level of investment in our schools, hospitals and families, to be determined by Number 10.

The Tories are paying the price for Osborne’s mercurial political instincts

I’m at a loss. How can a government that will raise the national debt to £1.4 trillion be trusted to run the economy? The Daily Politics/Com Res poll shows that Labour is more trusted on the economy than the Tories; it indicts George Osborne’s political performance. As Fraser noted, Osborne blew an unprecedented opportunity on yesterday's Today programme. The danger inherent in a £1.4 trillion national debt is not a difficult argument to make. Tax hikes, inflation and soaring interest rates will be the progeny of Brown’s continued borrowing binge. Yet Osborne confined his attack to valid but esoteric points about credit ratings and a list of acronyms. Ken Clarke would not have made such an elementary political mistake.

Proscribing legalised drugs

‘My wife says these drugs turned me into a zombie, but the truth is I wouldn’t know, as I have hardly any memory of the past 40 odd years.’ The Mail printed Keith Andrew’s testimony, a 74-year-old retired electrician who has guzzled prescribed benzodiazepines for nearly half a century. Andrew is one an estimated 1.5 million British people who have been addicted to valium and other tranquilisers. Whether addiction is voluntary or not is irrelevant. Anti-anxiety treatment remains a laxly regulated area of medicine: more than 8 million prescriptions are made each year and there are an estimated 100,000 illicit addicts currently using. In a fascinating piece in the Telegraph, Andrew M Brown outlines the side-effects of long-term ‘Benzos’.

Osborne’s weak response

I was all set up to Fisk the post-Budget analysis which Darling normally gives to the Today programme after the Budget - but he wasn’t there. The Treasury refused to have him debate with Osborne which is what Today (unusually) seems to have assumed. Well, we’d best get used to hearing Osborne post-Budget day. At first, I thought it was a coup for the Tories - but as Evan Davis sharpened his claws, it soon appeared to have been a net negative. Osborne just didn’t sound confident. A series of exchanges left him looking unprepared. His line - that he will eliminate ‘the bulk’ of the annual overspend over the lifetime of the parliament - was challenged: what does it mean?

Darling, what about the deficit?

Alistair Darling was terribly proud of the Government's record in his Budget speech today.  But he again dodged the question of how he'll get the deficit under control.  Ruth Lea has called this his "do little" Budget. With the country still facing hundreds of billions in borrowing, the few billion being saved are virtually neglible.  There are huge downside risks for those borrowing forecasts as we get onto the more contentious growth projections from 2011-12 onwards, which are way above City expectations.  And everything will get much worse if borrowing costs rise - Mike Denham has explored the frightening possibilities in a blog for the TPA. We had a proud boast that Britain has "the fastest deficit reduction plan of any G7 country", a massive Brownie.

Another dangerous Quango in the offing

This government’s love of quangos reached new heights in today’s Budget when Darling announced the creation of a ‘credit adjudicator service’. This will allow companies who feel they have been unfairly denied credit by their bank to appeal the decision to the credit adjudicator service which will have the legal power to order the bank to lend the money.    The Treasury is quick to stress that businesses will have to have claims referred to the credit adjudicator service by their regional business body. But this quango, which will cost five million pounds a year to run, strikes me as a quite absurd attempt to second guess commercial lending decisions. It is also unaccountable.

Spotting the Budget deceptions

There are, lest you need reminding, two levels of deception on Budget Day.  First, there's the Chancellor's Budget statement, which is pretty obviously spun to put the best light on things.  I refer you to when Brown triumphantly announced a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax in his final Budget statement, while somehow forgetting to mention that the 10p rate has been abolished.  And then there's a Budget document itself, in which much of the most revealing content is tucked away in appendices and footnotes.  Even straightforward spending figures are hard to come by in the Red Book. In which case, we'll be doing our best to catch out Darling in our live-blog of his statement from 1230.

All quiet on the Westminster front

If there's one thing distinguishing this morning, then it's just how placid everything feels.  The clouds are moving sluggishly across the sky; there's little excitement about the measures expected in the Budget; and there are no stories about rifts between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.  Indeed, Downing St insiders tell the FT that relations between Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have been "pretty good" in the run up to the Budget, because both are "broadly agreed on the strategy of halving the deficit in four years while backing growth initiatives." Many are taking this as a sign that Darling and Peter Mandelson have won out in their efforts to coax Brown away from the crude "investment vs cuts" thinking of yesteryear.

Darling’s Budget preview emphasises private sector-driven growth

Exactly what you want at the end of the working day: Alistair Darling's video preview of the Budget.  I've watched it so that you don't have to, and it's striking just how much emphasis the Chancellor places on "unlocking private sector investment" to "ensure growth".  There's probably nothing in it, but it does make you wonder whether Labour have some secret business tax cut ready to spring tomorrow.  And, if so, how that sqaures with increasing the rates of tax on workers.

Both Labour and the Tories need to get stuck into Vince

The public remains infatuated with Vince Cable. A Politics Home poll reveals that 31 percent want Cable to be chancellor. It’s a crushing endorsement: Don’t Know is his nearest rival on 24 percent, followed by Ken Clarke on 16 percent. Cable’s reputation rests on his sagacious airs and an apparent contempt for party politics. His eminence is baffling. Fleet-footed fox-trotter he may be; economic guru he is not. Andrew Neil's interview shattered Cable’s invincibility. The Sage of Twickenham admitted to changing his mind over the HBOS Lloyds merger and his constantly shifting position on cuts was exposed. Add to that the ill-thought out Mansions Tax and Cable begins to look leaden. The Tories and Labour should emphasise Cable’s intellectual shortcomings.

Osborne steps up his game

George Osborne must have changed breakfast cereals, or something, because he's suddenly a different man.  After the Tories muddied their economic message to the point of abstraction a few weeks ago, there's now a new clarity and directness about the shadow chancellor's languange.  Exhibit A was his article in the FT last week.  And Exhibit B comes in the form of his article for the Sunday Telegraph today. It sets out five deceptions that we can expect from the Budget this week, and are all punchy and persuasive in equal measures.  But it's the first which, as I said on Friday, is the most important: "The Chancellor might be so brazen as to claim he has a 'windfall' because it turns out he has to borrow a few billion pounds less than he forecast in the autumn.

Pot, kettle, black

George Boateng, Alan Milburn and Andrew Smith have written a letter to George Osborne, calling him to task over the contradictions in his policy. 'It is not clear to us whether these mixed messages are a deliberate attempt to obscure your plans or a symptom of a confused approach to policy but either way the public deserves better.' Fair enough. Osborne's policy has become more concrete in recent weeks, but much remains still to do. Peversely, I think they've given too much detail, and have been found out because they haven't seen the nation's books.The reduction in the amount of cuts that are planned is a case in point. But talk about hypocrisy: take a look at Labour's economic policy in the run-up to the budget. They are certainly clear on cuts: there aren't going to be any.

Mr Blond goes to Washington

The Red Tory, Phillip Blond, is spreading the faith in the States. The New York Times’s David Brooks is impressed, very impressed. In fact, he is a proselytising convert. ‘Britain is always going to be more hospitable to communitarian politics than the more libertarian U.S. But people are social creatures here, too. American society has been atomized by the twin revolutions here, too. This country, too, needs a fresh political wind. America, too, is suffering a devastating crisis of authority. The only way to restore trust is from the local community on up.’ Blond’s premise is unanswerable – the twin revolutions of left (prescriptive rights) and right (free market liberalism) have, perversely, centralised power. Everything is highly contestable.