Ed miliband

James Kirkup is reporting a rumour that Alan Johnson is to resign. More to follow. UPDATE: He has resigned. Sky News is reporting that Johnson has gone for personal reasons. That may be so - and because of the timing (the government was having the day from hell until ten to five this evening) I suspect that it is - but it will be a hard line to hold, given Johnson's fraught tenure and his very public disagreements with a leader he didn't back in the first place. A serious problem for Miliband, then, just as his fledgling leadership was beginning to pick up after Oldham.

Labour are on the up. They strolled Oldham. They’ve recruited great armies of Clegg’s defectors. And they’d win a majority if a general election were held tomorrow. There’s been a lot of excited talk in Westminster about Tom Baldwin, Labour’s new communications attack-dog, coming in with his fangs bared and sharpening up their tactics. Well, it ain’t working so far, if PMQs is anything to go by. Ed Miliband had his dentures in today. He was humourless, slow to react and sometimes inaudible. His questions didn’t resemble even the most basic PMQs battle-plan, namely, a pre-meditated onslaught culminating in a simple powerful message presented in a memorable one-liner.

Today’s shocking inflation figures have sparked a fascinating debate. I laid out my take earlier, and I thought CoffeeHousers may appreciate a different perspective. Matthew Hancock MP is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, former economist at the Bank of England and former chief of staff to George Osborne. Fraser Nelson. Last week, growth. This week, inflation. Ed Miliband is complaining about both. But the trouble is: the two can’t be taken in isolation. For the main weapon against inflation is for the Bank of England to raise interest rates. Yet the main weapon to support growth is for the Bank of England to keep interest rates lower for longer. You can’t credibly complain about both.

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 actually it was about 2007, he was worried that the party had been spending too much - before the crash happened.

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 domestic and international experts, from Tony Blair to the European Commission and Mervyn King.

The Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election now raises the distinct possibility that Labour could win the next election by default. People on the left have been wondering for some time what could unite the multiple and often contradictory tribes of the Labour Party and it looks like “Tory cuts” and “Lib-Dem broken promises” could do the trick. Simple, crude, disingenuous – perfect. Krishnan Guru-Murthy is half-right when he tweets “paradoxically, real danger may be for Labour...if they conclude they are 'back in the game' already”. Collectively (and morally) this is true. But the bizarre situation we find ourselves in is that the electorate remains unconvinced by Ed Miliband and yet his party is trouncing the coalition in the polls.

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 simply that Brown and his ministers didn't breath the c-word early enough.

After David Chaytor's conviction last week, the dominoes just keep on tumbling. Today, it was Eric Illsley's turn to confess to his expenses-related sins – and he did so by pleading guilty to three "false accounting" charges in Southwark Crown Court. Given that he's still MP for Barnsley Central – although now as an independent, rather than the Labour MP he was elected as – that makes him the first sitting parliamentarian to face sentencing as a receipt offender. A dubious accolade, to be sure. In terms of day-to-day politics, the next question is whether Illsley will be able to hang on to his seat. He could, theoretically, remain in place if his sentence is under a year's jail time.

Ed Miliband's press conference today was a classic example of clever opposition politics. He and Alan Johnson said that Labour would continue the bonus tax on the banks for one more year. This policy has the twin advantage of maximising the coalition's discomfort over the whole issue of bankers' bonuses and expiring well before the next election. The rest of Miliband's press conference was devoted to an attempt to defend the record of the previous Labour government. Miliband kept making the valid point that in the years before the crash Cameron and Osborne weren't saying that Labour was spending too much but were instead committed to matching Labour's spending plans.