George osborne

George Osborne’s public interventions on issues other than the economy are few and far between, which is why his article in today’s Times merits attention. In it, Osborne analyses some of the causes of Barack Obama’s victory and then applies his findings to the 2015 election in Britain. On the basis of this article, we can conclude that the Tories’ leading strategist expects to fight the next election in a challenging economic climate against two men, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband (in that order), who he intends to blame for causing Britain’s ills.

Tonight was a good one for the Tory whips. What looked last week like it could have been a tricky vote on a Labour motion to delay the fuel duty rise, turned into a relatively easy government win. There were only nine Tory MPs absent from the vote and every other Tory MP backed the government. Now, the reason there was no rebellion was, at least partly, because Treasury ministers dropped a fair few hints that there would be action on fuel duty in the autumn statement. Robert Halfon, who has led a sustained campaign on this issue, said after the vote that it was ‘Right to wait until’ the autumn statement on this issue. The question for Osborne now is whether he can find enough money to scrap the rise outright rather than just postpone it for a few months.

We are now closer to the 2015 election than the 2010 one. We also expected by now to have the coalition’s mid-term review, the document that will set out its priorities for the second half of its term in office. But its publication has now been delayed until January. This is because the debates about what new policies to include in it are still going on. The quad—David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander—met on November 1st to discuss various ideas for it. They were, as I report in the Mail on Sunday, joined by Oliver Letwin and David Laws for this meeting with the Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood also present. Dominating the meeting was ‘earn or learn’.

Fresh from his success nationalising the Post Office pension, which artificially knocked £23 billion off the national debt, the Chancellor has come up with another manoeuvre which effectively adds £35bn to the total of QE - and analysts think this just save him from having to tear up his fiscal rule in next month’s mini-Budget. CoffeeHousers may remember that two years ago, Osborne said that the debt-to-GDP ratio would be falling by 2015/16. But the outlook between his first budget and his last one has deteriorated rapidly. But help may be at hand. There is a lot of spare cash from debt interest hanging about in the Asset Purchase Facility: the interest that has accumulated on the gilts bought as part of Quantitative Easing.

The Spectator hosted a packed-out debate last night on the motion — 'George Osborne isn't working: we need a Plan B' — and you can now hear the outcome for yourself. As Isabel reported earlier, it was an evening of intense discussion and disagreement, so we have recorded the entire evening for you to listen at your leisure.

Although sometimes implied in public debates, deficit reduction and growth are not alternatives. Both are essential for Britain’s prosperity and economic stability. On either count, George Osborne is failing. In 2010, George Osborne inherited an economy that was growing at 0.7 per cent. Later that year he ignored the advice of many economists and set out plans to close the deficit within four years rather than eight. He also failed to set out a coherent growth plan, predicated on investment and jobs in the green economy that his party once championed. The result, plain for all to see, has been a double dip recession. The economy has contracted in each of the last three quarters and has eliminated all of the limited increases in GDP made in the first year of Osborne’s tenure.

The economy is out of recession. It grew by 1 per cent in the third quarter of this year, which is the fastest quarterly growth rate since 2007. This positive number makes it a lot easier for the coalition to claim that the economy is ‘healing’. Expect to see ministers heading to TV studios to talk about how a million more private sector jobs have been created, how there are record number of new start ups and that inflation is down. Being out of recession makes it a lot easier for the coalition to defend its economic record. Today’s number should also serve to boost consumer confidence, to provide a little bit of a ‘feel-good’ factor. Now, there are obviously unique factors involved in this growth figure. Olympic ticket sales, for instance, added 0.

Finally, some good news for the government - the public seems unconcerned by its recent difficulties. In spite of plebgate and George Osborne's train ticket dominating this weekend's papers, polling out today shows the Conservatives have managed to reverse their voting share decline in the wake of their party conference. The Populus/Times poll places the Tories on 35 per cent, up five points from September while Labour are down by the same amount. This brings Labour's lead down to where it was before this year's budget in March 2012: The Guardian/ICM polling shows a smaller increase, with Labour on 41 per cent and 33 per cent for the Conservatives. This is still a two point improvement on their last poll: However, the ICM figures are adjusted in favour of the Tories.

Plenty of newspapers have been following the scent of my magazine report that Lynton Crosby is about to return to the Tory fold. Here’s something to help them along. One Tory government source tells me that the Tory leadership ‘are trying to twist his arm’ because ‘there's a recognition that he would bring some focus, discipline and clarity to the campaign that was missing last time.’ My Whitehall whisperer says that negotiations have been going on for some time. Apparently, the biggest impediment is not George Osborne, who would have to surrender control of election strategy, but Crosby’s exorbitant fees.

Class is back with a vengeance, and not just thanks to the Andrew Mitchell saga. Today’s newspapers are chock full of stories across the news spectrum linked back to class. The Mail, for example, has declared all-out war on the government, with a splash of ‘Who do you they think they are?’ — a front page one could expect to see from the Mirror. The Mitchell-Osborne matter receives the double page treatment, lambasting both affairs with ‘Exit Mitchell, four weeks late’ and ‘Move Mr Osborne? But he can’t possibly sit in standard class’. Their coverage is summarised in a strong op-ed by Simon Heffer discussing class attacks on the Tories.

ITV's Rachel Townsend had a more exciting train journey into Euston than she might have expected this afternoon. She discovered George Osborne sitting in first class with a standard ticket. CLASS. His aide tells ticket collector he cannot possibly move and sit with the likes of us in standard class and requests he is allowed to — Rachel Townsend (@RachTownsendITV) October 19, 2012 remain in First Class. Ticket collector refuses #standoff — Rachel Townsend (@RachTownsendITV) October 19, 2012   What a shame that this happened on a quiet and rainy Friday afternoon in Westminster when every hack and blogger was twiddling their thumbs and wondering what to do.

Does George Osborne need to adopt a Plan B? This will be the topic for a Spectator debate a week on Monday. But the argument is pretty clear to everyone with even a passing interest in the trials of George Osborne. Let’s look at the story so far. His Plan A - accelerated fiscal consolidation - was based on two key premises:  there was no alternative to cutting the deficit much more sharply than previously planned, because otherwise the markets would panic and long-term interest rates would rise sharply.  As one Treasury Minister put it: 'Britain’s AAA credit rating was under threat...George Osborne had no choice but to come up with a comprehensive deficit reduction plan—not to merely halve the deficit over four years, but eliminate it.

George Osborne is a keen observer of American politics, so perhaps it is little surprise to read in the Telegraph that the chancellor is arguing for faster withdrawal from Afghanistan. The American presidential race has confronted national war-weariness. The Obama camp has long held that the 2014 drawdown date is firm; that is when the troops will come hom. It is even thought that US training and logistical support to Kabul will be curtailed together with combat operations. The Romney camp’s view has been less clear, which suggests that it has not wanted to leave itself exposed during the campaign by committing to anything from a position of comparative ignorance next to Obama.