Ed balls

Ed Balls committed Labour to voting against the reduction in the 50p rate at his post-Budget briefing. But he wouldn’t say whether or not Labour would pledge to restore it in their manifesto; sticking to the classic opposition line that all decisions on tax will be made in the manifesto and not before. Balls, though, was on typically pugilistic form; few politicians relish a scrap as much as he does. The Labour leadership clearly view the abolition of the 50p rate as a major political opening for them. Balls went out of his way to attack the HMRC report that Osborne used to justify the move. He mockingly declared that he’d ‘never seen a government document with a Laffer curve in it before.’ This 50p fight is a classic Labour / Tory struggle.

Why did Gordon Brown wait until the last few weeks of Labour's thirteen-year reign to implement a 50p tax rate? Easy. Because it wasn't so much a fiscal policy as a fiendish trap, designed to cut into a Tory government's flesh. But now, it seems, the trap has snared another victim: Labour itself. The Telegraph's Daniel Knowles has already neatly summarised the politics arising from Sam Coates' report (£) that Labour will neither back the scrapping of the 50p rate nor promise to reinstate it either. But the basic point is worth repeating: if that's the approach that Labour chooses, then they'll be left in a complete mess. They can attack the coalition all they like for cutting taxes for high earners, but the answer will come back, ‘well, would you keep it?

At the end of last year, Ed Balls suggested that Labour would be ‘taking a tougher approach to conditionality [for benefit claimants]. If people can work, they should work.’ Now the party are starting to outline what that means. As the Independent puts it today, summarising a speech that Liam Byrne has given in Birmingham, ‘The unemployed would be guaranteed the offer of a job but could lose their benefits for six months if they turned it down, under a tough new policy on welfare planned by Labour.’ The paper characterises this as an attempt to ‘outflank the Tories on welfare,’ which is surely true. But the whole thing also reminds me of the Brown era.

Oh look, Ed Balls has backed a mansion tax, saying in an interview with Nick Robinson that ‘If the chancellor wants to go down that road then we will support him... let's work together.’ But, never fear, it's not a completely non-partisan offer from the shadow chancellor. He does weave a divide with George Osborne, by adding that ‘The issue is what's the purpose? If the purpose is to help families facing higher tuition fees, higher VAT or higher fuel bills — for example boosting their tax credits — yes.’ In other words, the money should go towards Labour policies, or Balls will withdraw his hand of friendship.

The run-up to last year’s Budget was all about fuel duty. This year it’ll be all about direct taxes. The Lib Dems are determined to put their manifesto pledge of raising the income tax personal allowance to £10,000 front and centre. They already managed to turn this promise into government policy in the Coalition Agreement, and last year’s Budget announced that the threshold would rise to £8,105 in April this year. But Nick Clegg’s made clear that he wants to go ‘further and faster’ on this. The Conservative response at the Treasury – according to today’s Telegraph – is simple: ‘how are they going to pay for it?

Moody's doubts might not be making much difference to the actual economy, but they could make a good deal of difference to the political battle being waged over it. George Osborne, of course, is citing this as further proof of the need for fiscal consolidation. Ed Balls, meanwhile, is redoubling his call for a ‘change of course’ — and somewhat misleadingly too. But what does Mervyn King think? Thanks to his comments in a press conference this morning, we don't have to guess.

Why did Moody’s downgrade Britain to AAA with a negative outlook, but leave other countries on AAA? One crucial factor is the scale of our debt increase: 60 per cent over the parliament. You won’t find it mentioned much today. The Chancellor is talking about austerity, helped by Balls who talks about his harsh deep cuts. Osborne today swears to keep ‘dealing with the debt’ — but his definition of ‘dealing with debt’ would even make an Italian blush: As Balls said on the radio this morning, the plan isn't working. But Balls' narrative — that Osborne is cutting harsh and deep — is untrue, as Moody's knows.

Ed Miliband is not naturally a eurospectic, but he certainly sounded like one during his appearance on ITV's Daybreak show earlier. ‘I'm very concerned about what David Cameron has done,’ he said in reference to the PM's equivocation over Europe yesterday. ‘He's sold us down the river.’ Whether this is Miliband committing towards the sort of euroscepticism that is being urged on him by some of his colleagues, it's too early to say. It's only words, after all. But my guess is that — just as when Miliband attacked Cameron for not signing up to the latest treaty, but couldn't say whether he'd have signed it himself — this is more him trying to have his cake and eat it.

Douglas Alexander may sometimes hide the meaning of what he says under a layer of jargon but he remains one of the more interesting political strategists on the Labour side. Alexander, a Brown long-marcher turned Blairite, saw before many of his colleagues the need for Labour to level with the public on cuts. He privately thought that Gordon Brown’s attempt to fight the last election on a reprise of the investment versus cuts strategy of ’01 and ’05 was a mistake. So, it is no surprise that Alexander, now shadow Foreign Secretary, is trying to use the opportunity created by Ed Balls’ acceptance of the need for a public sector pay freeze to try and move Labour into a better fiscal place.