George osborne

listen to ‘Spending review 2013: the Coffee House analysis’ on Audioboo George Osborne loves a good dividing line: he sees it as his job to 'weaponise' policies in a way that benefits his party. So what were the key divisions that he set out in today's Spending Round statement? 1. The full package Clearly the Chancellor wanted to make Labour as uncomfortable as possible as he set out the cuts for each department. Once Ed Balls finished his response, the Chancellor started prodding him on whether Labour would match the package. 'Hands up on the Labour benches who wants to match our spending cuts?' he cried. Ed Balls suddenly became strangely interested in his water carafe and in an urgent conversation with Ed Miliband.

Strangely, both sides at Treasury questions today wanted to talk about something that does their own party no favours at all to mention. The Labour whips had sent their loyal backbenchers out in force to ask about Friday's borrowing figures, while George Osborne and Conservative colleagues were very happy indeed to talk about how much the Opposition would have to borrow, too. Labour wanted to tell off the government for borrowing more. The government wanted to remind Labour that it would borrow even more.

The Tory leadership held one of its election strategy meetings yesterday at Chequers. The Prime Minister and his colleagues will have been reassured that their party certainly seems to be turning its face towards 2015, with some of David Cameron's fiercest critics preferring to get behind the campaign for James Wharton's referendum bill. I look at some of the ways Cameron and his colleagues are trying to repair relationships in my Telegraph column today. But Tory anger comes in waves, and there's one racing towards the shore that, according to backbenchers, has a great deal to do with the party's chances with its core vote at the next general election.

George Osborne is expected to respond to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards's final report in his Mansion House speech this evening. The report is hefty and packed with recommendations, but there are two areas where the Chancellor will find himself treading a particularly tricky path. Both the proposal to defer bonuses and introduce a criminal offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank are designed to encourage responsibility and a greater regard of the consequences of bad behaviour. But Osborne will know that they also pose a threat to the success of the city. He will need to consider what effect deferring some remuneration for up to 10 years will have on London's competitiveness as a financial centre.

When a politician’s speech is spun ten days in advance, you know there’s trouble behind the scenes. Next week’s Mansion House dinner will be seen by City attendees principally as a farewell to Sir Mervyn King — and journalists present (including your columnist) will be timing the ovation to see how it compares with Eddie George’s full five minutes in 2003. But we learn that the Chancellor is ‘poised’ to use the occasion to ‘signal’ a public offer of Lloyds Banking Group shares that could raise up to £17 billion and mark a turning point in the post-crisis clean-up of the banking sector. By giving discounts to small investors, it might also swing votes away from Ukip.

Ed Balls has just told Andrew Neil on the Sunday Politics that Labour will include pensions in their welfare cap. This opens up a major dividing line with the Tories who have been clear that George Osborne will exclude pensions from his spending cap. I suspect that Balls and Ed Miliband will now be badgered with questions about whether, if necessary, they’ll cut pensions — or not up-rate them — to meet the cap. Given the power of the grey vote in British politics (Labour estimates that one in every two voters in 2010 was over 55) they are going to come under massive pressure to rule this out. But, strikingly, Balls was not prepared to do this on  Sunday Politics. He even drew attention to the amount of welfare payments which go to the over-60s.

Today must count as one of the most encouraging days for the centre right in British politics in recent times. Labour’s apparent abandonment of universal child benefit is a massive blow to the 1945 settlement. It is akin in significance to when Labour began to accept the privatisations of the Thatcher era. Now, there’s no intellectual difference between declaring that better off pensioners won’t receive winter fuel payments and that better off mothers won’t receive child benefit. But in symbolic terms, the difference is huge. The winter fuel payment is a recent addition to the welfare state, introduced by the last Labour government. It is not fundamental to it.

Does marriage matter anymore? Not so long ago, David Cameron was foremost amongst those giving an unfashionable ‘yes’ to this question. It became his signature theme, the closest he had to a Blair-style ‘irreducible core’. It seemed, at the time, as if a 1979-style realignment was underway. The Labour Party was being sucked into the vortex of its own economic failure. Its social failure was just as profound: it had tested to destruction the idea that more welfare makes countries stronger or fairer. And study after study showed that the institution of marriage was easily the most powerful weapon every developed to promote health, wealth and education. In Cameron, we seemed to have leader willing to say so. In my Telegraph column today, I look at what happened.